IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v35y2018i3p439-465.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agenda†Setting at the Energy†Water Nexus: Constructing and Maintaining a Policy Monopoly in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Baka
  • Kate J. Neville
  • Erika Weinthal
  • Karen Bakker

Abstract

Despite calls to increase federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing (HF), the U.S. Congress has maintained a regulatory system in which environmental regulatory authority is devolved to the states. We argue that this system is characterized by a long†standing “policy monopoly†: a form of stability in policy agenda†setting in which a specific manner of framing and regulating a policy issue becomes hegemonic. Integrating theories on agenda†setting and environmental discourse analysis, we develop a nuanced conceptualization of policy monopoly that emphasizes the significance of regulatory history, public perceptions, industry–government relations, and environmental “storylines.†We evaluate how a policy monopoly in U.S. HF regulation has been constructed and maintained through a historical analysis of oil and gas regulation and a discourse analysis of eleven select congressional energy committee hearings. This research extends scholarship on agenda†setting by better illuminating the importance of political economic and geographic factors shaping regulatory agendas and outcomes.èƒ½æº â€ æ°´å…³ç³»ä¸­çš„è®®ç¨‹è®¾ç½®ï¼šåœ¨ç¾Žå›½æ°´åŠ›åŽ‹è£‚ç›‘ç®¡ä¸­å»ºæž„å¹¶ç»´æŒ æ”¿ç­–åž„æ–­ å°½ç®¡äººä»¬è¦ æ±‚è ”é‚¦åŠ å¤§å¯¹æ°´åŠ›åŽ‹è£‚ï¼ˆhydraulic fracturing, HF)的监管, ä½†ç¾Žå›½å›½ä¼šå ´ä¸€ç›´ç»´æŒ ç €å°†çŽ¯å¢ƒç›‘ç®¡æ ƒç§»äº¤ç»™å „å·žçš„ç›‘ç®¡ç³»ç»Ÿã€‚æœ¬æ–‡è®¤ä¸º, æ­¤ç³»ç»Ÿé•¿æœŸä»¥æ ¥å­˜åœ¨â€œæ”¿ç­–åž„æ–­â€ ï¼šå ³æ”¿ç­–è®®é¢˜è®¾ç½®ä¸­ç¨³å®šæ€§çš„ä¸€ç§ å½¢å¼ ã€‚åœ¨è¿™æ ·çš„ç¨³å®šæ€§ä¸­, æ‹Ÿè®¢å’Œç®¡ç †æ”¿ç­–è®®é¢˜çš„ç‰¹å®šå½¢å¼ ä¼šæˆ ä¸ºä¸»å¯¼ã€‚é€šè¿‡æ•´å ˆè®®ç¨‹è®¾ç½®ç †è®ºå’ŒçŽ¯å¢ƒè¯ è¯­åˆ†æž , æœ¬æ–‡å¯¹æ”¿ç­–åž„æ–­è¿›è¡Œäº†ç»†è‡´çš„æ¦‚å¿µåŒ–ã€‚æ­¤æ¦‚å¿µåŒ–å¼ºè°ƒäº†ç›‘ç®¡åŽ†å ²çš„æ„ ä¹‰ã€ å…¬ä¼—æ„ŸçŸ¥ã€ è¡Œä¸šå’Œæ”¿åºœçš„å…³ç³», ä»¥å ŠçŽ¯å¢ƒçš„â€œæ•…äº‹æƒ…èŠ‚â€ ã€‚é€šè¿‡å¯¹çŸ³æ²¹å¤©ç„¶æ°”æ³•è§„è¿›è¡ŒåŽ†å ²åˆ†æž , 和对11æ¬¡å›½ä¼šèƒ½æº å§”å‘˜ä¼šå ¬è¯ ä¼šè¿›è¡Œè¯ è¯­åˆ†æž , 本文评价了美国 HFç›‘ç®¡ä¸­çš„æ”¿ç­–åž„æ–­æ˜¯å¦‚ä½•è¢«å»ºæž„å’Œç»´æŒ çš„ã€‚é€šè¿‡æ›´å¥½åœ°é˜ è¿°å½±å“ ç›‘ç®¡è®®ç¨‹å’Œç›‘ç®¡ç»“æžœçš„æ”¿æ²»ç» æµŽå› ç´ å’Œåœ°ç †å› ç´ çš„é‡ è¦ æ€§, æœ¬æ–‡æ‰©å¤§äº†å…³äºŽè®®ç¨‹è®¾ç½®çš„å­¦æœ¯ç ”ç©¶ã€‚Creación De Agenda En El Nexo Entre Energía y Agua: construir y Mantener Un Monopolio De Políticas En La Regulación De La Fracturación Hidráulica En EE.UU A pesar de que haya llamados para incrementar la supervisión federal de la fracturación hidráulica (HF), el congreso de los EE.UU. ha mantenido un sistema regulatorio en el que la autoridad regulatoria se ha transferido a los estados. Argumentamos que el sistema está caracterizado por un “monopolio de políticas†que ha permanecido por mucho tiempo: una forma de estabilidad en la creación de agendas políticas en la que una forma específica de estructurar y regular un tema político se vuelve hegemónica. Al integrar las teorías de la creación de agendas y el análisis de discurso ambiental, desarrollamos un concepto detallado del monopolio político que pone énfasis en el significado de la historia regulatoria, las percepciones públicas, las relaciones entre industria y gobierno y las “narrativas†ambientales. Evaluamos cómo un monopolio de políticas en la regulación de la HF en EE.UU. se ha sido construido y mantenido a través de un análisis histórico de la regulación del petróleo y el gas natural y el análisis de discurso de 11 audiencias selectas del comité de energía en el congreso. Esta investigación extiende el conocimiento de la creación de agendas al ilustrar mejor la importancia de los factores políticos, económicos y geográficos que están dándole forma a las agendas regulatorias y a los resultados.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Baka & Kate J. Neville & Erika Weinthal & Karen Bakker, 2018. "Agenda†Setting at the Energy†Water Nexus: Constructing and Maintaining a Policy Monopoly in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(3), pages 439-465, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:3:p:439-465
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12287
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12287?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:revpol:v:35:y:2018:i:3:p:439-465. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.