IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v48y2015i1p51-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying policy frames through semantic network analysis: an examination of nuclear energy policy across six countries

Author

Listed:
  • Junseop Shim
  • Chisung Park
  • Mark Wilding

Abstract

This study uses semantic network analysis to investigate nuclear energy policy frames in six countries: USA, UK, Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea. It is suggested that semantic network analysis represents a useful tool to investigate policy frames in complex policy environments. The discourse of top-level decision-makers is analyzed to highlight similarities and differences in policy frames and to identify the key policy arguments in the integrated network of all six countries. In total, 14 major policy arguments are identified, which relate to the three major frames of energy security, clean energy, and nuclear safety, along with the meta-issue of economic growth. There are differences in the degree of emphasis on each of the frames in the six countries, and Germany can be seen to have diverged the most following the Fukushima accident, as the emphasis is on clean energy, to the exclusion of the other frames. In contrast, both the USA and Japan have framed the issues primarily in terms of nuclear safety and energy security, while the UK and France have stressed the economic growth frame, and Korea has prioritized nuclear safety. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Junseop Shim & Chisung Park & Mark Wilding, 2015. "Identifying policy frames through semantic network analysis: an examination of nuclear energy policy across six countries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 51-83, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:48:y:2015:i:1:p:51-83
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-015-9211-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-015-9211-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-015-9211-3?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. Teräväinen, Tuula & Lehtonen, Markku & Martiskainen, Mari, 2011. "Climate change, energy security, and risk--debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3434-3442, June.
    2. Magali Delmas & Bruce Heiman, 2001. "Government Credible Commitment to the French and American Nuclear Power Industries," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 433-456.
    3. Neil Hood & Jan-Erik Vahlne & Robert Kilis, 1997. "Introduction," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Neil Hood & Robert Kilis & Jan-Erik Vahlne (ed.), Transition in the Baltic States, chapter 1, pages 1-15, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Corner, Adam & Venables, Dan & Spence, Alexa & Poortinga, Wouter & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2011. "Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4823-4833, September.
    5. David, Paul A. & Rothwell, Geoffrey S., 1996. "Measuring standardization: An application to the American and French nuclear power industries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 291-308, September.
    6. Chong, Dennis & Druckman, James N., 2007. "Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 637-655, November.
    7. Vivoda, Vlado, 2012. "Japan’s energy security predicament post-Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 135-143.
    8. Peter Bradford, 2012. "The nuclear landscape," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7388), pages 151-152, March.
    9. Nelson, Thomas E. & Clawson, Rosalee A. & Oxley, Zoe M., 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 567-583, September.
    10. Hayashi, Masatsugu & Hughes, Larry, 2013. "The policy responses to the Fukushima nuclear accident and their effect on Japanese energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 86-101.
    11. Srinivasan, T.N. & Gopi Rethinaraj, T.S., 2013. "Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 726-736.
    12. anonymous, 1997. "New $50 bill introduced," Financial Update, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, vol. 10(Oct), pages 1-4.
    13. A. Triandafyllidou & A. Fotiou, 1998. "Sustainability and Modernity in the European Union: A Frame Theory Approach to Policy-Making," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 3(1), pages 60-75, March.
    14. Sirin, Selahattin Murat, 2010. "An assessment of Turkey's nuclear energy policy in light of South Korea's nuclear experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6145-6152, October.
    15. van Atteveldt, Wouter & Kleinnijenhuis, Jan & Ruigrok, Nel, 2008. "Parsing, Semantic Networks, and Political Authority Using Syntactic Analysis to Extract Semantic Relations from Dutch Newspaper Articles," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 428-446.
    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. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee, 2020. "Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 637-665, December.
    2. Chai, Song & Liu, Qiyun & Yang, Jin, 2023. "Renewable power generation policies in China: Policy instrument choices and influencing factors from the central and local government perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Segantin, Stefano & Testoni, Raffaella & Zucchetti, Massimo, 2019. "The lifetime determination of ARC reactor as a load-following plant in the energy framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 66-75.
    4. Ba, Zhichao & Ma, Yaxue & Cai, Jinyao & Li, Gang, 2023. "A citation-based research framework for exploring policy diffusion: Evidence from China's new energy policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Kirsi Kotilainen & Pami Aalto & Jussi Valta & Antti Rautiainen & Matti Kojo & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2019. "From path dependence to policy mixes for Nordic electric mobility: Lessons for accelerating future transport transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 573-600, December.
    6. Aerang Nam & Christopher M. Weible & Kyudong Park, 2022. "Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 387-410, July.
    7. Ajay K. Singal, 2021. "CSR Initiatives and Practices: Empirical Evidence From Indian Metal and Mining Companies," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.

    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. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    2. Korkmaz YILDIRIM & Musa GÜN, 2016. "Public Attitude to Nuclear Energy from Climate Change and Energy Security Perspectives in Turkey," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 141-160, June.
    3. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    4. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    5. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    6. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    7. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    8. Portugal-Pereira, J. & Ferreira, P. & Cunha, J. & Szklo, A. & Schaeffer, R. & Araújo, M., 2018. "Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 158-166.
    9. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Zarnikau, J. & Olson, A. & Jones, R. & Chait, M. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Electricity-market price and nuclear power plant shutdown: Evidence from California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 234-244.
    10. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting & Meng, Xiaochun, 2016. "Post-Fukushima public acceptance on resuming the nuclear power program in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 685-694.
    11. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    12. Gallo-Rivera, María Teresa & Mancha-Navarro, Tomás & Garrido-Yserte, Rubén, 2013. "Application of the counterfactual method to assess of the local economic impact of a nuclear power station," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1481-1492.
    13. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting, 2014. "Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 397-405.
    14. Phil Johnstone & Andy Stirling, 2015. "Comparing Nuclear Power Trajectories inGermany And the UK: From ‘Regimes’ to ‘Democracies’ in Sociotechnical Transitions and Discontinuities," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-18, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Melikoglu, Mehmet, 2016. "The role of renewables and nuclear energy in Turkey׳s Vision 2023 energy targets: Economic and technical scrutiny," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-12.
    16. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Yuan, Zihao & Lee, Chi-Chuan & Chang, Yu-Fang, 2022. "The impact of renewable energy technology innovation on energy poverty: Does climate risk matter?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    17. Marlène Gerber & André Bächtiger & Irena Fiket & Marco Steenbergen & Jürg Steiner, 2014. "Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 410-429, September.
    18. Lam, J. & Li, V. & Reiner, D. & Han, Y., 2018. "Trust in Government and Effective Nuclear Safety Governance in Great Britain," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1827, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Muñoz, Beatriz & García-Verdugo, Javier & San-Martín, Enrique, 2015. "Quantifying the geopolitical dimension of energy risks: A tool for energy modelling and planning," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 479-500.
    20. Hartmann, Patrick & Apaolaza, Vanessa & D'Souza, Clare & Echebarria, Carmen & Barrutia, Jose M., 2013. "Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1366-1376.

    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:kap:policy:v:48:y:2015:i:1:p:51-83. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.