IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v109y2017icp623-630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Frame envy in energy policy ideology: A social constructivist framework for wicked energy problems

Author

Listed:
  • Victor Valentine, Scott
  • Sovacool, Benjamin K.
  • Brown, Marilyn A.

Abstract

This article deals with the nexus between energy policymaking and ideology. The article builds and expands upon a theoretical social constructivist analytical strategy, or framework, put forth for the purposes of conducting energy policy analysis. It then addresses criticism that this strategy constitutes “postmodern mush” that has no place in energy analysis before concluding with a review of why social constructivism has a significant role to play in building consensus and enhancing understanding between competing energy policy perspectives. The main contribution made by this paper stems from application of this ontological construct to the analysis of policies targeting wicked energy problems. The study cuts to the core about how energy problems are defined, interpreted, communicated, planned for, and potentially implemented via policy. Put another way, our study offers a timely critique or a call for reconceptualizing the process and practice of energy policy itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Victor Valentine, Scott & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Brown, Marilyn A., 2017. "Frame envy in energy policy ideology: A social constructivist framework for wicked energy problems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 623-630.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:623-630
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517304597
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank W. Geels & Frans Berkhout & Detlef P. van Vuuren, 2016. "Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 576-583, June.
    2. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    3. Paul C. Stern & Benjamin K. Sovacool & Thomas Dietz, 2016. "Towards a science of climate and energy choices," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 547-555, June.
    4. Felder, Frank A., 2016. "“Why can’t we all get along?” A conceptual analysis and case study of contentious energy problems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 711-716.
    5. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    6. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    7. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Brown, Marilyn A., 2015. "Deconstructing facts and frames in energy research: Maxims for evaluating contentious problems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 36-42.
    8. Boiney, Lindsley G. & Kennedy, Jane & Nye, Pete, 1997. "Instrumental Bias in Motivated Reasoning: More When More Is Needed," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 1-24, October.
    9. Scholten, P. W. A. & Van Nispen, F. K. M., 2008. "Building Bridges Across Frames?," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 181-205, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chester, Lynne & Elliot, Amanda, 2019. "Energy problem representation: The historical and contemporary framing of Australian electricity policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 102-113.
    2. Brown, George & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2017. "The presidential politics of climate discourse: Energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 127-136.
    3. Patrik Thollander & Jenny Palm & Johan Hedbrant, 2019. "Energy Efficiency as a Wicked Problem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Axsen, Jonn, 2018. "Functional, symbolic and societal frames for automobility: Implications for sustainability transitions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 730-746.
    5. Holmgren, Sara & Pever, Maris & Fischer, Klara, 2019. "Constructing low-carbon futures? Competing storylines in the Estonian energy sector's translation of EU energy goals," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Samuel Alexander & Joshua Floyd, 2020. "The Political Economy of Deep Decarbonization: Tradable Energy Quotas for Energy Descent Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-18, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    2. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    3. Jiang, Syuan-Yi, 2022. "Transition and innovation ecosystem – investigating technologies, focal actors, and institution in eHealth innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    5. Iizuka, Michiko & Hane, Gerald, 2021. "Transformation towards sustainable development goals: Role of innovation ecosystems for inclusive, disruptive advances in five Asian case studies," MERIT Working Papers 2021-001, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    8. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    9. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    11. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.
    12. van der Have, Robert P. & Rubalcaba, Luis, 2016. "Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1923-1935.
    13. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical network analysis – a methodological framework and a case study from the water sector," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2035, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    14. Franz Tödtling & Michaela Trippl & Veronika Desch, 2022. "New directions for RIS studies and policies in the face of grand societal challenges," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(11), pages 2139-2156, November.
    15. Catia Milena Lopes & Annibal José Scavarda & Guilherme Luís Roehe Vaccaro & Christopher Rosa Pohlmann & André Luis Korzenowski, 2018. "Perspective of Business Models and Innovation for Sustainability Transition in Hospitals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    17. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    18. Heiberg, Jonas & Truffer, Bernhard & Binz, Christian, 2022. "Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    19. Hsien-Chen Lo & Ching-Yan Wu & Mei-Chih Hu, 2020. "Acting as an innovation niche seeder:how can the reverse salient of southeast Asian economies be overcome?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 1195-1217, September.
    20. Nikas, A. & Koasidis, K. & Köberle, A.C. & Kourtesi, G. & Doukas, H., 2022. "A comparative study of biodiesel in Brazil and Argentina: An integrated systems of innovation perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:109:y:2017:i:c:p:623-630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.