价值变化、价值冲突与政策创新:利用多流框架理解印度市场经济电力调度计划的反对意见。

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Science and Engineering Ethics Pub Date : 2022-11-14 DOI:10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4
Nihit Goyal, Kaveri Iychettira
{"title":"价值变化、价值冲突与政策创新:利用多流框架理解印度市场经济电力调度计划的反对意见。","authors":"Nihit Goyal,&nbsp;Kaveri Iychettira","doi":"10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As policy innovation is essential for upscaling responsible innovation, understanding its relationship to value change(s) occurring or sought in sociotechnical systems is imperative. In this study, we ask: what are the different types of values in the policy process? And, how does value change influence policy innovation? We propose a disaggregation of values and value change based on a four-stream variant of the multiple streams framework (MSF), a conceptual lens increasingly used for explaining policy innovation in sociotechnical transitions. Specifically, we posit that the values that 'govern' problem framing, policy design, political decision making, and technological diffusion can evolve relatively independently, potentially leading to value conflict. We apply this framework to the ongoing case of the market-based economic dispatch of electricity (MBED) policy in the Indian energy transition using content analysis. We find that the MBED scheme-with its emphasis on efficiency (problem), economic principles (policy), low-cost dispatch (technology), and centralization (politics)-attempts value change in each stream. Each instance of value change is, however, widely contested, with the ensuing value conflicts resulting in significant opposition to this policy innovation. We conclude that a disaggregation of values based on the MSF can facilitate an analysis of value change and value conflict in sociotechnical transitions and lay the foundation for systematically studying the relationships among technological change, value change, and policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663179/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value Change, Value Conflict, and Policy Innovation: Understanding the Opposition to the Market-Based Economic Dispatch of Electricity Scheme in India Using the Multiple Streams Framework.\",\"authors\":\"Nihit Goyal,&nbsp;Kaveri Iychettira\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As policy innovation is essential for upscaling responsible innovation, understanding its relationship to value change(s) occurring or sought in sociotechnical systems is imperative. In this study, we ask: what are the different types of values in the policy process? And, how does value change influence policy innovation? We propose a disaggregation of values and value change based on a four-stream variant of the multiple streams framework (MSF), a conceptual lens increasingly used for explaining policy innovation in sociotechnical transitions. Specifically, we posit that the values that 'govern' problem framing, policy design, political decision making, and technological diffusion can evolve relatively independently, potentially leading to value conflict. We apply this framework to the ongoing case of the market-based economic dispatch of electricity (MBED) policy in the Indian energy transition using content analysis. We find that the MBED scheme-with its emphasis on efficiency (problem), economic principles (policy), low-cost dispatch (technology), and centralization (politics)-attempts value change in each stream. Each instance of value change is, however, widely contested, with the ensuing value conflicts resulting in significant opposition to this policy innovation. We conclude that a disaggregation of values based on the MSF can facilitate an analysis of value change and value conflict in sociotechnical transitions and lay the foundation for systematically studying the relationships among technological change, value change, and policy change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663179/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于政策创新对于提升负责任的创新至关重要,因此了解其与社会技术系统中发生或寻求的价值变化的关系是必不可少的。在本研究中,我们的问题是:在政策过程中有哪些不同类型的价值观?价值变化如何影响政策创新?我们提出了一种基于多流框架(MSF)的四流变体的价值观和价值观变化的分解,这是一种概念镜头,越来越多地用于解释社会技术转型中的政策创新。具体来说,我们假设“支配”问题框架、政策设计、政治决策和技术扩散的价值观可以相对独立地演变,从而潜在地导致价值冲突。我们使用内容分析将这一框架应用于印度能源转型中基于市场的经济电力调度(MBED)政策的持续案例。我们发现,MBED方案——强调效率(问题)、经济原则(政策)、低成本调度(技术)和集中化(政治)——试图在每个流中改变价值。然而,价值变化的每一个实例都受到广泛的争议,随之而来的价值冲突导致了对这一政策创新的重大反对。我们的结论是,基于MSF的价值分解有助于分析社会技术转型中的价值变化和价值冲突,并为系统研究技术变革、价值变化和政策变化之间的关系奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Value Change, Value Conflict, and Policy Innovation: Understanding the Opposition to the Market-Based Economic Dispatch of Electricity Scheme in India Using the Multiple Streams Framework.

As policy innovation is essential for upscaling responsible innovation, understanding its relationship to value change(s) occurring or sought in sociotechnical systems is imperative. In this study, we ask: what are the different types of values in the policy process? And, how does value change influence policy innovation? We propose a disaggregation of values and value change based on a four-stream variant of the multiple streams framework (MSF), a conceptual lens increasingly used for explaining policy innovation in sociotechnical transitions. Specifically, we posit that the values that 'govern' problem framing, policy design, political decision making, and technological diffusion can evolve relatively independently, potentially leading to value conflict. We apply this framework to the ongoing case of the market-based economic dispatch of electricity (MBED) policy in the Indian energy transition using content analysis. We find that the MBED scheme-with its emphasis on efficiency (problem), economic principles (policy), low-cost dispatch (technology), and centralization (politics)-attempts value change in each stream. Each instance of value change is, however, widely contested, with the ensuing value conflicts resulting in significant opposition to this policy innovation. We conclude that a disaggregation of values based on the MSF can facilitate an analysis of value change and value conflict in sociotechnical transitions and lay the foundation for systematically studying the relationships among technological change, value change, and policy change.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
期刊最新文献
Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules. A Confucian Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles. A Rubik's Cube-Inspired Pedagogical Tool for Teaching and Learning Engineering Ethics. Patient Preferences Concerning Humanoid Features in Healthcare Robots. Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1