IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2015-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing Nuclear Power Trajectories inGermany And the UK: From ‘Regimes’ to ‘Democracies’ in Sociotechnical Transitions and Discontinuities

Author

Listed:
  • Phil Johnstone

    (Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex)

  • Andy Stirling

    (Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex)

Abstract

This paper focuses on arguably the single most striking contrast in contemporary major energy politics in Europe (and even the developed world as a whole): the starkly differing civil nuclear policies of Germany and the UK. Germany is seeking entirely to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Yet the UK advocates a ‘nuclear renaissance’, promoting the most ambitious new nuclear construction programme in Western Europe. Here, this paper poses a simple yet quite fundamental question: what are the particular divergent conditions most strongly implicated in the contrasting developments in these two countries. With nuclear playing such an iconic role in historical discussions over technological continuity and transformation, answering this may assist in wider understandings of sociotechnical incumbency and discontinuity in the burgeoning field of ‘sustainability transitions’. To this end, an ‘abductive’ approach is taken: deploying nine potentially relevant criteria for understanding the different directions pursued in Germany and the UK. Together constituted by 30 parameters spanning literatures related to socio-technical regimes in general as well as nuclear technology in particular, the criteria are divided into those that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the ‘focal regime configuration’ of nuclear power and associated ‘challenger technologies’ like renewables. It is ‘internal’ criteria that are emphasised in conventional sociotechnical regime theory, with ‘external’ criteria relatively less well explored. Asking under each criterion whether attempted discontinuation of nuclear power would be more likely in Germany or the UK, a clear picture emerges. ‘Internal’ criteria suggest attempted nuclear discontinuation should be more likely in the UK than in Germany – the reverse of what is occurring. ‘External’ criteria are more aligned with observed dynamics – especially those relating to military nuclear commitments and broader ‘qualities of democracy’. Despite many differences of framing concerning exactly what constitutes ‘democracy’, a rich political science literature on this point is unanimous in characterising Germany more positively than the UK. Although based only on a single case, a potentially important question is nonetheless raised as to whether sociotechnical regime theory might usefully give greater attention to the general importance of various aspects of democracy in constituting conditions for significant technological discontinuities and transformations. If so, the policy implications are significant. A number of important areas are identified for future research, including the roles of diverse understandings and specific aspects of democracy and the particular relevance of military nuclear commitments – whose under-discussion in civil nuclear policy literatures raises its own questions of democratic accountability.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:2015-18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2015-18-swps-johnston-stirling.pdf&site=25
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Consoli, Davide & Marin, Giovanni & Marzucchi, Alberto & Vona, Francesco, 2016. "Do green jobs differ from non-green jobs in terms of skills and human capital?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1046-1060.
    2. Karoline S. Rogge & Kristin Reichardt, 2015. "Going Beyond Instrument Interactions: Towards a More Comprehensive Policy Mix Conceptualization for Environmental Technological Change," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-12, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Harris, Grant & Heptonstall, Phil & Gross, Robert & Handley, David, 2013. "Cost estimates for nuclear power in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 431-442.
    4. Klessmann, Corinna & Nabe, Christian & Burges, Karsten, 2008. "Pros and cons of exposing renewables to electricity market risks--A comparison of the market integration approaches in Germany, Spain, and the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3646-3661, October.
    5. Verbruggen, Aviel & Laes, Erik & Lemmens, Sanne, 2014. "Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 16-28.
    6. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lauber, Volkmar, 2006. "The politics and policy of energy system transformation--explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-276, February.
    7. Roman Jurowetzki, 2015. "Unpacking Big Systems - Natural Language Processing meets Network Analysis. A Study of Smart Grid Development in Denmark," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-15, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Huenteler, Joern & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Kanie, Norichika, 2012. "Japan's post-Fukushima challenge – implications from the German experience on renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 6-11.
    9. 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.
    10. Lipp, Judith, 2007. "Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5481-5495, November.
    11. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    12. Jochen Markard & Marco Suter & Karin Ingold, 2015. "Socio-technical transitions and policy change - Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-13, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Rucht, Dieter, 1990. "Campaigns, skirmishes and battles: anti-nuclear movements in the USA, France and West-Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 4(3), pages 193-222.
    14. Bergek, Anna & Berggren, Christian & Magnusson, Thomas & Hobday, Michael, 2013. "Technological discontinuities and the challenge for incumbent firms: Destruction, disruption or creative accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1210-1224.
    15. 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.
    16. Smith Stegen, Karen & Seel, Matthias, 2013. "The winds of change: How wind firms assess Germany's energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1481-1489.
    17. Kern, Florian & Smith, Adrian & Shaw, Chris & Raven, Rob & Verhees, Bram, 2014. "From laggard to leader: Explaining offshore wind developments in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 635-646.
    18. Carolyn Hendriks, 2009. "Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 341-368, November.
    19. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    20. Hess, David J., 2014. "Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 278-283.
    21. Smith, Adrian & Stirling, Andy & Berkhout, Frans, 2005. "The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1491-1510, December.
    22. Thomas, Steve, 2012. "What will the Fukushima disaster change?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 12-17.
    23. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Valentine, Scott Victor, 2010. "The socio-political economy of nuclear energy in China and India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3803-3813.
    24. Florian Kern, 2012. "The discursive politics of governing transitions towards sustainability: the UK Carbon Trust," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1/2), pages 90-106.
    25. Loet Leydesdorff & Gaston Heimeriks & Daniele Rotolo, 2016. "Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations: Maps and comparisons," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 741-748, March.
    26. Kahn, Edward P., 1997. "Can nuclear power become an ordinary commercial asset?," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 10(7), pages 16-21.
    27. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    28. Jewell, Jessica, 2011. "Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1041-1055, March.
    29. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    30. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Research portfolios in science policy: moving from financial returns to societal benefits," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-10, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    31. Janaina Pamplona da Costa, 2015. "Network (Mis)Alignment, Technology Policy and Innovation: The Tale of Two Brazilian Cities," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    32. del Río, Pablo & Unruh, Gregory, 2007. "Overcoming the lock-out of renewable energy technologies in Spain: The cases of wind and solar electricity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(7), pages 1498-1513, September.
    33. Bruninx, Kenneth & Madzharov, Darin & Delarue, Erik & D'haeseleer, William, 2013. "Impact of the German nuclear phase-out on Europe's electricity generation—A comprehensive study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 251-261.
    34. Andy Stirling, 2014. "Transforming Power: social science and the politics of energy choices," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    35. Linares, Pedro & Conchado, Adela, 2013. "The economics of new nuclear power plants in liberalized electricity markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(S1), pages 119-125.
    36. Walker, William, 2000. "Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 833-846, August.
    37. Ian Welsh, 2001. "Anti-nuclear Movements: Failed Projects or Heralds of a Direct Action Milieu?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 6(3), pages 36-50, November.
    38. Michel Berthélemy, 2012. "What drives innovation in nuclear reactors technologies? An empirical study based on patent counts," Post-Print hal-00585316, HAL.
    39. Harvey, David, 2007. "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199283279.
    40. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    41. James Meadowcroft, 2009. "What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 323-340, November.
    42. Strunz, Sebastian, 2014. "The German energy transition as a regime shift," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 150-158.
    43. Lucy Baker & Peter Newell & Jon Phillips, 2014. "The Political Economy of Energy Transitions: The Case of South Africa," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 791-818, December.
    44. Nill, Jan & Kemp, Ren, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 668-680, May.
    45. Purdue, M. & Kemp, R. & O'Riordan, T., 1984. "The context and conduct of the Sizewell B Inquiry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 276-282, September.
    46. Penna, Caetano C.R. & Geels, Frank W., 2012. "Multi-dimensional struggles in the greening of industry: A dialectic issue lifecycle model and case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 999-1020.
    47. Smith, Adrian & Voß, Jan-Peter & Grin, John, 2010. "Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 435-448, May.
    48. Peter Bradford, 2012. "The nuclear landscape," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7388), pages 151-152, March.
    49. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    50. Sims, Ralph E. H. & Rogner, Hans-Holger & Gregory, Ken, 2003. "Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(13), pages 1315-1326, October.
    51. Florian Kern & Adrian Smith & Chris Shaw & Rob Raven & Bram Verhees, 2014. "From laggard to leader: Explaining offshore wind developments in the UK," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    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. Matthew Lockwood & Caroline Kuzemko & Catherine Mitchell & Richard Hoggett, 2017. "Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 312-333, March.
    2. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    3. Tommaso Ciarli & Karolina Safarzynska, 2020. "Sustainability and Industrial Challenge: The Hindering Role of Complexity," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-18, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Javier López González & Valentina Meliciani & Maria Savona, 2019. "When Linder meets Hirschman: inter-industry linkages and global value chains in business services," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(6), pages 1555-1586.
    5. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Economic Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-25, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Kuokkanen, A. & Nurmi, A. & Mikkilä, M. & Kuisma, M. & Kahiluoto, H. & Linnanen, L., 2018. "Agency in regime destabilization through the selection environment: The Finnish food system’s sustainability transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1513-1522.
    7. Emre İşeri & Defne Günay & Alper Almaz, 2018. "Contending narratives on the sustainability of nuclear energy in Turkey," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 160-177, February.
    8. Neumann, Anne & Sorge, Lars & von Hirschhausen, Christian & Wealer, Ben, 2020. "Democratic quality and nuclear power: Reviewing the global determinants for the introduction of nuclear energy in 166 countries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 63.

    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. 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.
    2. Matthew Lockwood & Caroline Kuzemko & Catherine Mitchell & Richard Hoggett, 2017. "Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 312-333, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    6. Allan Dahl Andersen & Jochen Markard, 2017. "Innovating incumbents and technological complementarities: How recent dynamics in the HVDC industry can inform transition theories," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20170612, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    7. Nhat Strøm-Andersen, 2019. "Incumbents in the Transition Towards the Bioeconomy: The Role of Dynamic Capabilities and Innovation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Polzin, Friedemann, 2017. "Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation – A systematic review of barriers and solutions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 525-535.
    9. Mäkitie, Tuukka & Normann, Håkon E. & Thune, Taran M. & Sraml Gonzalez, Jakoba, 2019. "The green flings: Norwegian oil and gas industry’s engagement in offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 269-279.
    10. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Fuenfschilling, Lea & Binz, Christian, 2018. "Global socio-technical regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 735-749.
    12. Pesch, Udo, 2015. "Tracing discursive space: Agency and change in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 379-388.
    13. Schot, Johan & Kanger, Laur, 2018. "Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1045-1059.
    14. Javier López González & Valentina Meliciani & Maria Savona, 2019. "When Linder meets Hirschman: inter-industry linkages and global value chains in business services," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(6), pages 1555-1586.
    15. Gerardo Marletto, 2012. "Which Conceptual Foundations For Environmental Policies? An Institutional And Evolutionary Framework Of Economic Change," Working Papers 0112, CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre, revised 2012.
    16. Cherp, Aleh & Vinichenko, Vadim & Jewell, Jessica & Suzuki, Masahiro & Antal, Miklós, 2017. "Comparing electricity transitions: A historical analysis of nuclear, wind and solar power in Germany and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 612-628.
    17. Jochen Markard & Marco Suter & Karin Ingold, 2015. "Socio-technical transitions and policy change - Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-13, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Sorrell, Steve, 2018. "Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1267-1282.
    19. Monk, Alexander & Perkins, Richard, 2020. "What explains the emergence and diffusion of green bonds?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    20. Marletto, Gerardo, 2012. "Which conceptual foundations for environmental policies? An institutional and evolutionary framework of economic change," MPRA Paper 36441, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    democracy; transitions; nuclear power; UK; Germany; sustainability transitions;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:2015-18. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.