Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case




Скачать 88.91 Kb.
НазваниеMeta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case
страница4/4
Дата конвертации15.02.2013
Размер88.91 Kb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4

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.

References



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





State Capability

Opportunities

Limitations



















Nodality

  • Government is a prominent actor with regulatory power – it must be listened to.

  • Government can create a supportive narrative

  • Government is deeply divided and has a tendency to make policy based on factional politics.

  • The nuclear industry is multinational and other (richer) governments are competing with Britain.




Authority

  • Ability to change the law to make construction of nuclear power stations easier.




  • Nuclear energy is subject to multi-level governance.

  • Legislative complexity makes it difficult for the government to realise policy.

  • Government is subject to its own laws and policy decisions may be subject to legal challenge




Treasure

  • Government can sell land near nuclear sites.




  • The ability to realise nuclear power is dependent on stability of the electricity grid.

  • Government lacks the control necessary to ensure the stability of the electricity grid.




Organizational Capacity

  • Government can create and use supportive institutional infrastructure and procedures to lower costs for the private sector




  • GDA is unique and this increases the costs faced by the nuclear industry

  • The NII lacks the manpower to carry out the GDA process in a timely fashion.

  • There is serious division between the different agencies and departments within government.




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.

1   2   3   4

Похожие:

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconImpact of innovative technologies on nuclear industry development in case of pc angarsk electrolysis chemical complex
Влияние инновационных технологий на развитие ядерной промышленности на примере ОАО «аэхк»

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case icon2ac Case-heg case solv Collapse of natural gas industry inevitable- overleveraged, prices too low

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconThe case of the pharmaceutical industry in France and Belgium

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconThe Interplay between Innovation and Production Systems at Various Levels: The case of the Hungarian automotive industry

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconStrategic role of information systems and supporting it infrastructure in the automobile industry: a case study of toyota vs. Ford

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconNuclear Reaction and Structure Databases of the National Nuclear Data Center

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconUs nuclear leadership is in terminal decline – countries are looking to expand nuclear use now

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconPh d thesis summary multiple nuclear fragmentation processes and the dynamics of chaos. Applications to phase transitions in nuclear matter

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconEver since the disaster of Chernobyl hit the world’s scene in 1986, the rising popularity of nuclear energy came to an abrupt halt. The fear of more nuclear

Meta-governance and the uk nuclear Industry: a limiting Case iconStudy programme: Nuclear and Sub-nuclear Physics


Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
lib.convdocs.org


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.convdocs.org 2012
обратиться к администрации
lib.convdocs.org
Главная страница