Feed-in Tariff Pricing and Social Burden in Japan: Evaluating International Learning through a Policy Transfer Approach
Feed-in Tariff Pricing and Social Burden in Japan: Evaluating International Learning through a Policy Transfer Approach
复制标题
日本的上网电价补贴与社会负担：通过政策转移方法评估国际学习
DOI：
10.3390/socsci6040127
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Tezuka
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yugo Tanaka;Andrew J. Chapman;Shigeki Sakurai;T. Tezuka
全球许多国家都采用可再生能源 (RE) 部署的上网电价 (FiT) 政策方法。尽管上网电价补贴被认为可以有效促进可再生能源的部署，但能源费用和社会负担增加的问题是其使用经常被报道的负面影响。日本继许多发达国家之后，自 2012 年起开始实行上网电价补贴，正如其他国家所经历的那样，它给社会带来的社会负担明显高于政府最初的估计。尽管政策决策不一定反映国际政策经验，但仍需谨慎询问日本的做法是如何考虑社会负担增加的国际政策经验的。在这项研究中，我们通过采用传统模型来分析转移过程，以形成比以前更客观的观察结果，并根据先前的国际经验设定评估基准。我们确定了政策转移的两个流向，每个流由不同的参与者主导；政府和日本国会（Diet）的代表。两个参与者都经历了相同的经历，但对政策制定的解释、应用以及所采用的优先事项设置却截然不同。尽管该框架只能评估政策学习过程，但我们发现政府采取了合理且理性的学习过程，而另一方面，由于认知和政治原因，国会议员制定的修改法案并没有以同样的方式彻底汲取学习，特别是限制社会负担的问题没有得到解决。
Feed-in tariff (FiT) policy approaches for renewable energy (RE) deployment are employed in many nations around the world. Although FiTs are considered effective in boosting RE deployment, the issue of increasing energy bills and social burden is an often-reported negative impact of their use. The FiT has been employed in Japan since 2012, following after many developed countries, and, as was experienced in other nations, led to a social burden imparted on society significantly higher than initial government estimates. Although policy decision making does not necessarily reflect international policy experience, it is still prudent to ask how international policy experiences of social burden increase were considered within the Japanese approach. In this research, we analyzed the transfer process by adapting a conventional model to develop more objective observations than was previously possible, by setting a benchmark for evaluation based on prior international experiences. We identified two streams of policy transfer, each led by different actors; the government and representatives of the National Diet of Japan (Diet). Both actors were exposed to the same experiences, however the interpretation, application to policy development and priority settings employed were vastly different. Although the framework can only assess policy learning processes, we have found that the government undertook a reasonable and rational process toward learning, while, on the other hand, the modified bill developed by the Diet members did not thoroughly derive learnings in the same way, due to cognitive and political reasons, and specifically, the issue of limiting social burden was not addressed.