A contested transition toward a coal-free future: Advocacy coalitions and coal policy in the Czech Republic
A contested transition toward a coal-free future: Advocacy coalitions and coal policy in the Czech Republic
复制标题
向无煤未来的有争议的过渡：捷克共和国的倡导联盟和煤炭政策
DOI：
10.1016/j.erss.2019.101283
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
A. Lechner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Petr Ocelík;K. Svobodova;Markéta Hendrychová;L. Lehotský;J. Everingham;Saleem H Ali;J. Badera;A. Lechner
淘汰煤炭是正在进行的向脱碳经济的能源过渡的一个组成部分。任何这样的进程都涉及不同的行为者，他们就这种过渡的性质和速度展开竞争。本研究使用倡导者联盟框架来分析对抗子系统内政策改变的条件。它关注的是捷克共和国的煤炭子系统，这是一个后共产主义国家，依赖煤炭，在经济上可开采储量相对较大。使用来自组织调查的数据，应用探索性社会网络分析技术来确定倡导联盟，并使用演绎区块建模来检验关于子系统功能的假设。重点是：(1)决策者的碎片化，(2)决策者的针对性，以及(3)专家信息的使用。确定了两个相互竞争、在意识形态上相距甚远的联盟：工业联盟和环境联盟。结果进一步表明，决策者之间高度分散，这从他们的跨联盟成员资格和他们的信念的异质性中可见一斑。针对决策者的做法是由两个联盟的主要成员，即环境非政府组织和工业，但也是由研究组织实施的。最后，专家信息交流与已确定的联盟有很大重叠，从而增加了它们的凝聚力。有人认为，这种子系统配置限制了通过谈判达成协议或学习政策来改变政策的可能性。政策经纪人和政策场所被建议作为补救措施，以缓和子系统的对抗性。
Coal phase-out is an integral part of the ongoing energy transition to a decarbonized economy. Any such process involves diverse actors that compete over the nature and pace of such transition. This research uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework to analyze the conditions of policy change within an adversarial subsystem. It focuses on the coal subsystem in the Czech Republic, a post-communist coal-dependent country with comparatively large economically recoverable reserves. Using data from an organizational survey, exploratory social network analysis techniques are applied to identify advocacy coalitions and deductive block-modeling is used to test hypotheses on the subsystem’s functioning. The focus is on: (1) fragmentation of decision-makers, (2) targeting of decision-makers, and (3) use of expert information. Two competing and ideologically distant coalitions were identified: the Industry Coalition and Environmental Coalition. The results further show high fragmentation among decision-makers, as indicated by their cross-coalition membership and the heterogeneity of their beliefs. The targeting of decision-makers is practiced by principal members of both coalitions, i.e. environmental non-governmental organizations and industry, but also by research organizations. Lastly, expert information exchange strongly overlaps with the identified coalitions and thus increases their cohesiveness. It is argued that such subsystem configuration limits the potential for policy change through negotiated agreement or policy learning. Policy brokers and policy venues are suggested as remedies to moderate the adversarial nature of the subsystem.