Free competition, come hell or high water? How neoliberalism prevailed and why Finland allowed peat to decline in the midst of an energy crisis

Abstract

Can advocates of fossil energy technologies in decline invoke energy security to influence energy politics? This article investigates how supporters of Finland's declining peat industry failed to do so, despite a window of opportunity presented by an energy crisis, Finland's dependency on imported Russian energy, and the abrupt end of these imports following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. By focusing on a case where invoking energy security has failed, it sheds light on the conditions that limit the political effects of energy security discourse, which has remained undertheorized in the literature. Using discursive policy analysis, the article analyses 22 expert interviews and 33 policy documents. It shows that neoliberal ideas about how to organize state-market relations can limit the political effects of energy security discourse, even when incumbent interests advocate for a domestic source of energy in times of war and energy crisis. In this case, neoliberalism made the peat decline and the fuel shortage appear as a “market problem” that did not warrant state intervention. The article uses insights from the Finnish case to theorize about the wider implications of how neoliberalism, energy security discourse, and energy crises interact, and how this affects the political influence of established energy interests. It suggests a research agenda on how neoliberalism affect energy transitions and energy politics, and argues that while neoliberalism can work against fossil industries in decline, it also risks impeding transitions to truly sustainable alternatives.