Скачать 88.91 Kb.
Discussion and Conclusion
The problems facing a revival of nuclear power in Britain are considerable and the state centric view that a capable state can ‘metagovern’ effectively as long as it has access to key assets would appear to be called into question by our case study. It was observed that the despite the British government’s claim to nodality, its ability to exercise authority, deploy treasure and organizational resources, the structure and scale of the nuclear industry allows it to be resistant to metagovernance. George and Bennett (2005:123) explain: ‘Generalizing the results of case studies is not a simple function of the number or diversity of cases studied….Single cases can cast doubt on theories across a wide range of conditions’. Using qualitative methods requires a different approach to inference compared to quantitative methods. But too often theories drawing on insights from qualitative methods are supported by numerous illustrations rather than a focused examination of cases chosen for their relevance. The study of a multiplicity of events is often accompanied by a loose assumption that the more is better. But the connection between theory building and case studies needs to be seen in a sharper perspective than that. It requires the theory to be specified in a refutable manner and the case study to have the quality of providing a crucial test. As Gerring (2007:121) points out “…it is almost always easier to disconfirm a theory than to confirm with a single case.” Van Evera (1997) provides one example of a confirmation of a theory with a single test. Einstein’s theory of relativity made predictions that could be tested only during a solar eclipse and in 1919 during a solar eclipse they were found to be valid. It is difficult to think of similar simple confirmatory tests in the social sciences using observational methods but our approach supports the arguments of George and Bennett (2005) and Gerring (2007) that the case study has been pushed too far from the lexicon of tools available to social scientists and can be rehabilitated if used appropriately. Political scientists in the future could make greater use of crucial cases to test emerging bodies of theory. We have used a “least-likely” case - the UK’s nuclear renaissance policy - to cast doubt on the state centric version of metagovernance theory. We have provided not a knock-out blow to the theory but plainly have demonstrated the need for it to be refined or qualified.
Case studies especially those conducted with rigour can provide powerful lessons for policy makers and practitioners (George and Bennett, 2005: Ch 12). What are the lessons from our case study? They can be quite boldly stated. The problems facing a revival of nuclear power in Britain would appear on the basis of the evidence we have collected to be so severe that to overcome them the government may have to break from a metagovernance role and use its scarce financial resources, organizational capacities and legislative powers to support the nuclear industry directly.
It may require giving a higher allocation of state resources to keeping the light on than originally planned. A state run nuclear industry would render issues of state aid to private companies irrelevant and this would permit the necessary upgrades to the electricity grid. A state run nuclear industry would also make the need to provide ‘certainty’ to industry an irrelevant concern. The prospects of ‘the lights going out’ which – according to the Economist in August 2009 is not such a far off scenario –might lead to a break from the implicit neo-liberal hegemony that dominated thinking about energy and many other policy areas for the last two decades in the UK.
Baker, K. (2009). Delivering Nuclear power: Challenges for the Obama Administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 747 - 752
Baker, K., J. Simpson and G. Stoker (2009). The Nuclear Investors Conference. Southampton: University of Southampton. Available at: http://www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/ Accessed: 18/06/2009
Bell, S. and A. Hindmoor (2009). The Dynamics of Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, N. (2007). The Politics of the Environment. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Chessire, J. (1996). ‘UK Electricity Supply under Public Ownership.’ In J. Surrey (Ed.) The British Electricity Privatisation Experiment. (pp 14 – 39). London: Earthscan
Chhotray, V and G. Stoker (2009). Governance Theory and Practice . A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2007). Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy. Cm 7124. London: TSO
Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2008). White Paper on Nuclear Energy. Cm 7296. London: TSO.
Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2009) Energy Trends, June 2009. Available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51898.pdf Accessed 17/07/2009
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2008). Regional Energy Statistics. Available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/regional/regional.aspx. Accessed 15/08/2009
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009a) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy. Cm 7686. London: TSO.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009b). The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. London: TSO
Department for Trade and Industry (1995a). The Energy Report. Vol. 1. London: HMSO
Department for Trade and Industry (1995b). The Prospects for Nuclear power in the UK. Conclusions of the Government’s Nuclear Review. Cm 2860. London: HMSO
Department for Trade and Industry (2003). Energy White Paper: Creating a low carbon economy. Cm 5761. London: TSO
Department of Trade and Industry (2006). The Energy Challenge. New Nuclear Build Consultation. Cm 6887. London: TSO
Department for Trade and Industry (2007). Meeting the energy challenge: a white paper on energy. Cm 7124. London: TSO.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little-Brown.
Dunsire, A. (1996). Tipping the Balance: Autopoiesis and Governance. Administration and Society, 28: 299 – 333.
Electricity Act (1989). C.29.
Evans, P. (1995). Embedded Autonomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Evans, P. (1997).The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization. World Politics Fiftieth Anniversary Special Issue, 50: 62 - 87
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). ‘Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.’ Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219-245.
George, A.L. and Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W.D. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Health and Safety Executive (2007). ‘Enforcement Assessment Record’. In J. Large (2009). Sizewell A – Cooling pond recirculation pipe failure incident of 7 January 2007Assessment of the NII decision making process. Available at http://www.largeassociates.com/cz3179/R3179-A3.pdf Accessed 18/08/2009
Health and Safety Executive (2009). Supplementary notes on the HSE Board Paper “Briefing on the Nuclear Programme” and subsequent media reporting. Available at http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/releases/nd060709supp.pdf Accessed 18/08/2009
Hendry, C. (2008). Personal communication with the authors.
Hobson, J.M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham (NJ): Chatham House.
Hood, C. and Margetts, H. (2007). The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2001). Multi-Level Governance and European Governance. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield.
Jessop, B. (1997). Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance. Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 4(3) pp 561 – 581.
Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E-H. and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (1997) Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Networks. In W.J.M. Kickert, E-H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan (eds.). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage.
Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H and Koppenjan, J.F.M (1999). Managing complex networks: strategies for the public sector. Sage, London, UK.
Klijin, E-H., Koppenjan, J. And Termeer, K. (1995). Managing Networks in the Public Sector: A Theoretical Study of Management Strategies in Policy Networks. Public Administration, 73: 437 – 454.
Koppenjan, J.F.M. and Klijn, E-H. (2004). Managing uncertainty in networks; a network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.
Lovell, H., H. Bulkeley, S. Owens (2009) Converging agendas? Energy and climate change policies in the UK. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 27: 90 – 109.
National Grid (2008/9). Annual Review. Available at: http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/A3842215-A6F6-499B-9FD5-A101EAE6D0D0/35022/8847_NG_Review.pdf Accessed 20/07/2009
National Grid (2009). Statement of the Connection Charging Methodology. Available at http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/44EB525A-D24D-4141-8B07-982B819651CB/33165/GBCCMI5R0DraftvFINAL.pdf Accessed 15/08/2009
Newbury,.D.M. and Green, R. (1996). ‘Regulation, public ownership and privatization of the English electricity industry.’ In R.J. Gilbert and E.P. Kahn (eds.) International Comparisons of Electricity Regulation. (pp 25 – 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2005) Bureaucratic Competition in the Policy Process. The Policy Studies Journal, 33: 341-361
Nuclear Installations Act (1965). C. 57.
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2009). About Us. Available at http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/ Accessed 24/07/2009
NVIVO, Qualitative Data Analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 8, 2008.
O’Riordan, T., R. Kemp and M. Purdue (1988). Sizewell B: An Anatomy of The Inquiry. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Office of National Statistics (2001). Census 2001. Available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/population_data.asp Accessed 16/08/2009
Pidgeon, N.F.; Lorenzoni, I.; Poortinga, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power--No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18: 69-85
Planning Act (2008). C. 29
Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N.F.;Lorenzoni, I.; (2006). Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted during October and November 2005. Available at http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/5357%5Cmrdoc%5Cpdf%5C5357userguide.pdf Accessed 13/08/2009
Radioactive Substances Act (1993) C. 12.
Rhodes, R.A.W (1997). Understanding Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Salamon, L. (2001). The new governance and the tools of public action: an introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28:1611-64.
Scharpf, F.W. (1994). Games Real Actors Could Play: Positive and Negative Coordination in Embedded Negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6: 27 – 53.
Scrase, I., T. Wang, G. Mackerron, F. McGowen, S. Sorrell (2009). Introduction: Climate Change is Energy Policy. In I. Scrase and G. MacKerron (eds.) Energy for the Future. (pp 3 – 17). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scrase, I and Ockwell, D. (2009). Energy Issues: Framing and Policy Change. In I. Scrase and G. MacKerron (eds.) Energy for the Future. (pp 35 - 53). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sizewell A&B Stakeholders Group (2008). Minutes of the Meeting of the Sizewell A&B Stakeholder Group held at the Riverside Centre, Stratford St. Andrew. 4th September 2008. Available at http://www.onesuffolk.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7C4C39DC-58A0-4B56-B574-C80A75952FB9/0/Sept08Minutes.pdf Accessed 06/06/2009
Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36: 98 – 114.
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2008). (eds.) Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009). Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic Through Metagovernance. Public Administration, 87, 234 - 258
Stoker, G. (1998) Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. International Social Science Journal. Vol. 50 (155) pp 17 – 28.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36: 41- 57.
Thomas, S. (2006). The British Model in Britain: Failing Slowly. Energy Policy, 34, 583 – 600.
Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca: NY: Cornell University Press.
Ward, T. (2008). Unpublished Presentation at the Nuclear Investors Conference. London, UK, June 2008.
Weightman, M. (2008). Unpublished Presentation at the Nuclear Investors Conference. London, UK, June 2008.
Weiss, L. (1998). The Myth of the Powerless State. London: Polity Press
Williams, R. (1980). The Nuclear Power Decisions. London, Croon Helm.
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O.E. (1987). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Wood, J. (2009). Hopes and Fears of EDF’s Man on the Nuclear Frontline. Utility Week. June 05, 2009. Available at http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/features/interviews/the-hopes-and-fears-of-edfs-ma.php Accessed 06/06/2009
World Nuclear News (2009). Old Nuclear Event Out in the Open. July 12th 2009 Available at http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=25415&terms=Sizewell+A accessed 18/09/2009
Table 1: Prospects for effective metagovernance: the case of UK nuclear renaissance
1 Incidents at nuclear power stations are known as “…events...” and are classified by the IAEA on the International Nuclear Event Scale on a scale of 1 – 7. An event ranked 1 is classified as an “…anomaly…” whilst an event ranked 7 is a “…major accident…” The Chernobyl disaster is the only event ever to rank at 7. The most serious events in the West are Three Mile Island (1979) and the Windscale fire (1957). These events ranked at 5.
Влияние инновационных технологий на развитие ядерной промышленности на примере ОАО «аэхк»