探索英国、德国和荷兰能源决策中的证据文化

IF 5.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Society Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1093/polsoc/puae035
Will McDowall
{"title":"探索英国、德国和荷兰能源决策中的证据文化","authors":"Will McDowall","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory system.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Will McDowall\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/polsoc/puae035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47383,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Society\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae035\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae035","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了英国、德国和荷兰能源决策中不同的 "证据文化"。应对气候危机所需的紧急能源系统转型取决于以技术和工程专业知识为依据的政策,特别是能源建模。在荷兰、德国和英国政府的能源部中,这些专业知识的代表性一直很低。人们对政策咨询系统如何演变以应对这些新出现的证据需求了解有限。本文提出了一个描述证据文化差异的框架,并将其应用于英国、荷兰和德国能源政策制定的比较研究。我展示了在如何理解和使用证据方面的明显差异。荷兰和德国政府向顾问或独立机构寻求技术和模型证据。在这样做的过程中,荷兰和德国的部委似乎更看重这些证据的 "独立性",而英国的制度则是通过遵守正式程序来建立可信度。证据文化的第二个明显差异与对专家知识的公正和无价值程度的不同看法有关。这些案例表明,不同的证据文化与每个国家的制度历史共同发展,并塑造了能源政策咨询体系。
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
Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands
This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory 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
Policy and Society
Policy and Society Multiple-
CiteScore
18.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
43
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Policy and Society is a prominent international open-access journal publishing peer-reviewed research on critical issues in policy theory and practice across local, national, and international levels. The journal seeks to comprehend the origin, functioning, and implications of policies within broader political, social, and economic contexts. It publishes themed issues regularly and, starting in 2023, will also feature non-themed individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands Variation in evidence use across policy sectors: the case of Brazil A world of evidence: the global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework Words not deeds: the weak culture of evidence in the Canadian policy style
×
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