Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy pp 341–362Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Democracy and Transitions: European Experiences of Policy Inclusiveness and Changes in the Electricity Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Palgrave Handbooks in IPE ((PHIPE))

Abstract

Ratinen and Lund analyse the political and economic actors behind sociotechnical transitions in the electricity industry. Focusing on seldom-analysed dimensions of transitions, democracy, and inclusion, the chapter presents a typology for analysing the policy inclusiveness on transitions. In a case study, Ratinen and Lund compare governing traditions and the inclusion of the public and large firms in Denmark, Germany, Finland, and Spain. The inclusion of the public in Denmark and Germany is the highest, and in Spain and Finland the lowest. The same countries have the most and the least renewable and consumer-owned generation. Ratinen and Lund conclude that inclusiveness increases democracy in policy processes and outcomes that seems to result in more extensive transitions than if policy inclusiveness is low.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter builds on Ratinen M, & Lund P. Policy inclusiveness and niche development: Examples from wind energy and photovoltaics in Denmark, Germany, Finland, and Spain. Energy Research & Social Science 2015;6(3):136–145.

References

  • Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), 543–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J., Bunn, D. W., & Wattendrup, C. (2001). A model-based analysis of strategic consolidation in the German electricity industry. Energy Policy, 29(12), 987–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, M., Alvarez, A., & Maldonado, C. (2008). Two persistent dimensions of democracy: Contestation and inclusiveness. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 632–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy, and Building. (2015). Energy policies. Retrieved from www.ens.dk/

  • del Río, P., & Unruh, G. (2007). Overcoming the lock-out of renewable energy technologies in Spain: The cases of wind and solar electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(7), 1498–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doucouliagos, H., & Ulubaşoğlu, M. A. (2008). Democracy and economic growth: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology—The ‘issue-attention cycle’. The Public Interest, 28, 28–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPIA. (2013). Global market—Outlook for photovoltaics 2013–2016. (http://www.solarpowereurope.org/home/).

  • EPIA. (2014). Global market—Outlook for photovoltaics 2014–2018. EPIA(http://www.solarpowereurope.org/home/).

  • European Commission. (2007). DG competition report on energy sector inquiry. (No. SEC (2006) 1724). http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/inquiry/full_report_part2.pdf

  • European Union. (2015). National action plans. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm

  • Eurostat. (2014). Energy statistics, renewable electricity. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

  • Eurostat. (2015). Energy statistics, renewable electricity. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu

  • Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy. (2013). Energy policy. Retrieved from www.tem.fi

  • Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions: Reinforcing lock-in or facilitating change? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1292–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., & Wright, E. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., & Gehman, J. (2012). Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy, 41(6), 980–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy. (2015). Development of renewable energy sources in Germany 2014. Retrieved from www.bmwi.de

  • Granovetter, M., & McGuire, P. (1998). The making of an industry: Electricity in the United States. In M. Callon (Ed.), The laws of the markets (pp. 147–173). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. (1994). Empirical linkages between democracy and economic growth. British Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualizing reflexive governance: The politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3–4), 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & Klemmemsen, R. (2005). Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies, 53(2), 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson, S., & Lauber, V. (2006). The politics and policy of energy system transformation—Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy, 34(3), 256–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jhagroe, S., & Loorbach, D. (2015). See no evil, hear no evil: The democratic potential of transition management. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15(2), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, P., Bevan, S., & Jennings, W. (2011). The policy-opinion link and institutional change: The legislative agenda of the UK and Scottish Parliaments. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 1052–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. (1994). Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: The problem of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26(10), 1023–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., Rip, A., & Schot, J. (2001). Constructing transition paths through the management of niches. In R. Garud & P. Karnoe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 269–299). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, F. (2015). Engaging with the politics, agency and structures in the technological innovation systems approach. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16(3), 67–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4093–4103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaassen, G., Miketa, A., Larsen, K., & Sundqvist, T. (2005). The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kojo, M., & Litmanen, T. (Eds.). (2009). The renewal of nuclear power in Finland. Eastbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauber, V., & Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and restricting socio-political space for renewables—The German Renewable Energy Act. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawhon, M., & Murphy, J. T. (2012). Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology. Progress in Human Geography, 36(3), 354–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2003). The politics of liberalisation: Privatisation and regulation-for-competition in Europe’s and Latin America’s telecoms and electricity industries. European Journal of Political Research, 42(5), 705–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindaman, K., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2002). Issue evolution, political parties, and the culture wars. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipp, J. (2007). Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5481–5495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, H. (2007). The governance of innovation in socio-technical systems: The difficulties of strategic niche management in practice. Science and Public Policy, 34(1), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyhne Ibsen, C., & Skovgaard Poulsen, L. (2007). Path dependence and independent utility regulation: The case of Danish energy and telecommunications regulation. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 55(1), 41–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggetti, M. (2014). The politics of network governance in Europe: The case of energy regulation. West European Politics, 37(3), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, N. (2007). Learning from wind energy policy in the EU: Lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain. European Environment, 17(5), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Rommel, F., & Poguntke, T. (2002). Green parties in national governments. Chippenhamn: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, M. (1997). Green parties and political change in contemporary Europe: New policies, old predicaments. Gateshead: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogus, A. (2004). W(h)ither the economic theory of regulation? What economic theory of regulation? The politics of regulation. In J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), The politics of regulation: Institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance (pp. 31–44). Bodmin: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. The American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2005). The economic effects of constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesch, U. (2015). Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90(Part B), 379–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ratinen, M. (2012). Innovation and energy policies: Only few women, so what? In S. Andersson, K. Berglund, E. Sundin, & E. Gunnarsson (Eds.), Anthology on the topic of innovation, entrepreneurship and gender (pp. 89–108). Stockholm: Vinnova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratinen, M., & Lund, P. D. (2014). Growth strategies of incumbent utilities as contextually embedded: Examples from Denmark, Germany, Finland and Spain. Technology in Society, 38(8), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, R. (2006). Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch electricity regime. Research Policy, 35(4), 581–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, M. (2013). German utilities and distributed PV: How to overcome barriers to business model innovation. Renewable Energy, 55(7), 456–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (pp. 327–399). Columbus: Battelle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2008). Transition management: Reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. In J. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 15–46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruostetsaari, I. (2010). Changing regulation and governance of Finnish energy policy making: New rules but old elites? Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rüdig, W. (2002). Germany. In F. Müller-Rommel & T. Poguntke (Eds.), Green parties in national governments (pp. 78–111). Chippenhamn: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! transitions ahead: Politics, practice and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78–98. doi:10.1080/09644010802624835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Voß, J., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S., & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanish Ministry of Tourism, Industry, and Trade. (2015). Energy policy. Retrieved from www.mityc.es

  • Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Thousands Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenzel, T., & Frenzel, A. (2008). Regulating technological change—The strategic reactions of utility companies towards subsidy policies in the German, Spanish and UK electricity markets. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2645–2657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2014). Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science, 1(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toke, D., Breukers, S., & Wolsink, M. (2008). Wind power deployment outcomes: How can we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(4), 1129–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerkhof, M., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: Methodological considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 733–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S. (1996). Freer markets, more rules, regulatory reforms in advanced industrial countries. Ithica: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • VTT. (2014). Wind energy statistics. Retrieved from www.vtt.fi

  • Walker, G., & Shove, E. (2007). Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of socio-technical transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3–4), 213–225. doi:10.1080/15239080701622840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, J. (2009). Shadow elite: How the world’s new power brokers undermine democracy, government, and the free market. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. (1990). Interest groups. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiskerke, J. (2003). On promising niches and constraining sociotechnical regimes: The case of Dutch wheat and bread. Environment and Planning A, 35, 429–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C. (2005). On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’. Electoral Studies, 24(4), 555–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. (1996). Interest groups and Congress. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2014). The case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Physics, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

    Mari Ratinen & Peter D. Lund

Authors
  1. Mari Ratinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter D. Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent Institute for International Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Thijs Van de Graaf

  2. University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

    Benjamin K. Sovacool

  3. Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

    Arunabha Ghosh

  4. University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

    Florian Kern

  5. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

    Michael T. Klare

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ratinen, M., Lund, P.D. (2016). Democracy and Transitions: European Experiences of Policy Inclusiveness and Changes in the Electricity Industry. In: Van de Graaf, T., Sovacool, B., Ghosh, A., Kern, F., Klare, M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy. Palgrave Handbooks in IPE. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55631-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation