创造路径依赖:德国和美国可再生能源政策的分歧

C. Stefes, F. Laird
{"title":"创造路径依赖:德国和美国可再生能源政策的分歧","authors":"C. Stefes, F. Laird","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1667615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Germany and the United States followed similar renewable energy policy paths after the energy crisis of the 1970s. Starting around 1990 Germany moved onto a different path, promoting renewable energy with aggressive and consistent policies and, despite its weak renewable resources, became a leading country in terms of both renewable energy installations and manufacturing. At about the same time United States policy makers began debating greater support for renewable energy but never got onto a new policy path, providing instead weaker and volatile policy supports for the technologies. We utilize a historical institutionalist account to explain these divergent outcomes and, in the process, explore how well different theories of policy change work as explanatory frameworks. The cases reveal some unexpected outcomes, as the conventional institutionalist account of German policy making argues that Germany tends to avoid innovative policies for fear of upsetting carefully crafted social bargains. Yet, in our case, Germany not only strengthened its support for renewable energy but did so by adopting an innovative policy instrument, the feed-in tariff, a policy now popular almost everywhere except in the United States. The United States, in contrast, seemed both technologically and institutionally poised to become a leading renewable energy country but failed to do so, in part because of the interaction of institutional structures of policy making and deep-seated conflicts over the social nature of energy systems. Understanding these barriers to policy innovation is important at a time when the United States seems, again, to be on the brink of enacting policies that will substantially remake the energy system.","PeriodicalId":268570,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Other Sustainable Technology (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creating Path Dependency: The Divergence of German and U.S. Renewable Energy Policy\",\"authors\":\"C. Stefes, F. Laird\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1667615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Germany and the United States followed similar renewable energy policy paths after the energy crisis of the 1970s. Starting around 1990 Germany moved onto a different path, promoting renewable energy with aggressive and consistent policies and, despite its weak renewable resources, became a leading country in terms of both renewable energy installations and manufacturing. At about the same time United States policy makers began debating greater support for renewable energy but never got onto a new policy path, providing instead weaker and volatile policy supports for the technologies. We utilize a historical institutionalist account to explain these divergent outcomes and, in the process, explore how well different theories of policy change work as explanatory frameworks. The cases reveal some unexpected outcomes, as the conventional institutionalist account of German policy making argues that Germany tends to avoid innovative policies for fear of upsetting carefully crafted social bargains. Yet, in our case, Germany not only strengthened its support for renewable energy but did so by adopting an innovative policy instrument, the feed-in tariff, a policy now popular almost everywhere except in the United States. The United States, in contrast, seemed both technologically and institutionally poised to become a leading renewable energy country but failed to do so, in part because of the interaction of institutional structures of policy making and deep-seated conflicts over the social nature of energy systems. Understanding these barriers to policy innovation is important at a time when the United States seems, again, to be on the brink of enacting policies that will substantially remake the energy system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":268570,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: Other Sustainable Technology (Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: Other Sustainable Technology (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1667615\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Other Sustainable Technology (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1667615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

德国和美国在20世纪70年代的能源危机后也采取了类似的可再生能源政策。从1990年左右开始,德国走上了一条不同的道路,以积极和一致的政策促进可再生能源,尽管其可再生资源薄弱,但在可再生能源安装和制造方面都成为领先的国家。大约在同一时间,美国决策者开始讨论加大对可再生能源的支持力度,但从未走上新的政策道路,而是为这些技术提供了较弱且不稳定的政策支持。我们利用历史制度主义的解释来解释这些不同的结果,并在此过程中探索不同的政策变化理论作为解释框架的效果。这些案例揭示了一些意想不到的结果,正如对德国政策制定的传统制度主义解释所指出的那样,德国倾向于避免创新政策,因为担心破坏精心制定的社会交易。然而,在我们的例子中,德国不仅加强了对可再生能源的支持,而且还采用了一种创新的政策工具,即上网电价,这种政策现在几乎在除美国以外的所有地方都很流行。相比之下,美国似乎在技术和制度上都准备好成为一个领先的可再生能源国家,但却未能如愿,部分原因是政策制定的制度结构和能源系统社会本质上根深蒂固的冲突相互作用。了解这些政策创新的障碍是很重要的,因为美国似乎再次处于制定政策的边缘,这些政策将大幅重塑能源体系。
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
Creating Path Dependency: The Divergence of German and U.S. Renewable Energy Policy
Germany and the United States followed similar renewable energy policy paths after the energy crisis of the 1970s. Starting around 1990 Germany moved onto a different path, promoting renewable energy with aggressive and consistent policies and, despite its weak renewable resources, became a leading country in terms of both renewable energy installations and manufacturing. At about the same time United States policy makers began debating greater support for renewable energy but never got onto a new policy path, providing instead weaker and volatile policy supports for the technologies. We utilize a historical institutionalist account to explain these divergent outcomes and, in the process, explore how well different theories of policy change work as explanatory frameworks. The cases reveal some unexpected outcomes, as the conventional institutionalist account of German policy making argues that Germany tends to avoid innovative policies for fear of upsetting carefully crafted social bargains. Yet, in our case, Germany not only strengthened its support for renewable energy but did so by adopting an innovative policy instrument, the feed-in tariff, a policy now popular almost everywhere except in the United States. The United States, in contrast, seemed both technologically and institutionally poised to become a leading renewable energy country but failed to do so, in part because of the interaction of institutional structures of policy making and deep-seated conflicts over the social nature of energy systems. Understanding these barriers to policy innovation is important at a time when the United States seems, again, to be on the brink of enacting policies that will substantially remake the energy system.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving the Operation of a Drum Grain Dryer With Justification of the Low-Temperature Mode Parameters Soil Monitoring and Testing Using IoT for Fertility Level and Crop Prediction GSM Based Polyhouse Farming and Controlling using Bidirectional Pump Thermal Performance of a Developed Solar Box Cooker for AWKA Metropolis Is This Technology Useless? How Seemingly Irrelevant Factors Affect Adoption and Efficacy
×
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