The application of contrast explanation to energy policy research: UK nuclear energy policy 2002–2012
This paper advances the application of the methodology, contrast explanation, to energy policy research. Research in energy policy is complex and often involves inter-disciplinary work, which traditional economic methodologies fail to capture. Consequently, the more encompassing methodology of contrast explanation is assessed and its use in other social science disciplines explored in brief. It is then applied to an energy policy research topic—in this case, nuclear energy policy research in the UK. Contrast explanation facilitates research into policy and decision-making processes in energy studies and offers an alternative to the traditional economic methods used in energy research. Further, contrast explanation is extended by the addition of contested and uncontested hypotheses analyses. This research focuses on the methods employed to deliver the new nuclear programme of the UK government. In order to achieve a sustainable nuclear energy policy three issues are of major importance: (1) law, policy and development; (2) public administration; and (3) project management. Further, the research identifies that policy in the area remains to be resolved, in particular at an institutional and legal level. However, contrary to the literature, in some areas, the research identifies a change of course as the UK concentrates on delivering a long-term policy for the nuclear energy sector and the overall energy sector.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kouris, George, 1980. "Limits to energy policy analysis -- a reply to Weinberg," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 175-176, June.
- Brian Pinkstone, 2002. "Persistent demi-regs and robust tendencies: critical realism and the Singer--Prebisch Thesis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 561-583, September.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Aaker, David A & Stayman, Douglas M & Hagerty, Michael R, 1986. " Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact, and Sequence Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 365-381, March.
- Taylor, S., 2011. "Can New Nuclear Power Plants be Project Financed?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1140, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
- Richard O. Mason, 1969. "A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(8), pages 403-414, April.
- Ian I. Mitroff, 1971. "A Communication Model of Dialectical Inquiring Systems--A Strategy for Strategic Planning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(10), pages 634-648, June.
- Drolet, Aimee, 2002. " Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change's Sake," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 293-305, December.
- Marshall R. Goodman & Fredric P. Andes, 1985. "The Politics of Regulatory Reform and The Future Direction of Nuclear Energy Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(1), pages 111-121, 08.
- Corbey, Dorette, 1995. "Dialectical functionalism: stagnation as a booster of European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(02), pages 253-284, March.
- Folkes, Valerie S & Martin, Ingrid M & Gupta, Kamal, 1993. " When to Say When: Effects of Supply on Usage," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 467-477, December.
- Stephen Pratten, 2004. "Mathematical formalism in economics: consequences and alternatives," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 37-42, 06.
- Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
- Pamela Moss, 1998. "Recovering a Dialectical View of Rationality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 55-67, November.
- MacKerron, Gordon, 2004. "Nuclear power and the characteristics of `ordinariness'--the case of UK energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(17), pages 1957-1965, November.
- Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
- Freedman, David & Rothenberg, Thomas & Sutch, Richard, 1983. "On Energy Policy Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(1), pages 24-32, January.
- Freedman, David & Rothenberg, Thomas & Sutch, Richard, 1983. "On Energy Policy Models: Rejoinder," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-36, January.
- Tony Lawson, 2009. "Applied economics, contrast explanation and asymmetric information," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 405-419, May. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)