Competing for consensus: On the discursive struggle in Swedish climate policy making on low-carbon transitions

Transcription

1 Competing for consensus: On the discursive struggle in Swedish climate policy making on low-carbon transitions Roger Hildingsson Lund University IST 2012 Conference, DTU, Lyngby 30 August 2012 Aims & Objectives Reexamine the role of discourse in shaping the conditions for public policy & policy change Analyze the policy discourse(s) emerging on LC transitions in Swedish climate policy-making Material: Interviews: approx. 60 policy-makers/actors Policy documents and public debate

2 What possibility space for LC transition policy? Source: Bailey & Wilson 2009 Discourse analysis as policy theory Hajer (1995, 2009, etc): an ensemble of notions, ideas, concepts and categorizations through which meaning is ascribed to social and physical phenomena, and that is produced and reproduces in turn an identifiable set of practices Storylines, metaphors, images, narratives, etc Discourse coalitions, incl. discoursing subjects Schmidt (DI): institutions (re)constructed by sentient actors engaging in discourse; thus, institutions are to be seen as processes rather than structures Danielsson (2010): ideational structures (discourse) as both stabilizing and destabilizing mechanisms that hinder and enable policy change

3 Swedish climate policy: the mainstream view The success story of Swedish climate policy! Progressive consensus in environmental policy on governance for sustainable development Ecological modernisation in elite discourse Integral to the Swedish model for ecological governance (Lundqvist 2004) Climate policy: constituted by a win-win policy discourse on opportunities business, jobs, etc (Zannakis 2010) Our study: Confirms consensus as key for (past) policy success But consensus cracking when it comes to strategies for governing the transition to low-carbon futures A discursive struggle on policy choice & design a plate of spaghetti, that's about the way it is. There are a lot of policy instruments and it is hard to see which contributes to what. One could think we'll have to weed out a bit. "We have too many policy instruments, also too many targets... Ultimately it is the climate objective that is the overarching objective. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the societal problem we have to handle. VS. They have the mantra that we have one climate objective, thus we should use one policy instrument. And, that should be economic policy instruments, period. A single price on emissions will resolve all problems. One is not able to steer only by means of economic policy instruments that allocates resources most optimal, but one has to create incentives for transforming the infrastructure. We have to enlarge the cake; that is not achieved only through affecting the price. One has to generate that through research, development and investments.

4 Different policy paradigms? "Well, I'm not an economist, but one could notice... that there is a clash between economists and engineers.... that is actually the big war going on now should we go in for global cost-effectiveness and assess what it costs to reduce emissions in South Africa, Bangladesh or India; or should we promote the strategy of eco-efficiency according to which the issue is more about how to create a more competitive Europe and Sweden? Not supporting the competitors, but investing at home where it becomes more costly on the marginal to make ourselves smarter, able to gain market shares globally. These are two essentially different paradigms Kyoto low-cost abatement (dominating discourse) Cost-efficient climate action achieving (short-term) policy goals (i.e. Kyoto/EU targets) at lowest possible cost One target, one policy streamline, simplify and minimize policy intervention, avoid double regulation and policy mess Correct market failures the main rationality for policy Getting the price(s) right incentivize behaviour and innovation by general and technologically neutral measures (i.e. MBIs) Cost-efficiency norm: minimize social welfare losses, maximize (global) GDP in the presence of policy (i.e. neoclassic orthodoxy) Discourse coalition (agents): Ministry of Finance, NIER (key discoursing watchdog ), SEA policy economists; neoliberal MPs, Confed. Swedish Enterprises Optimal policy: carbon pricing, MBIs (only)

5 2. Green / Low-carbon economy (challenging discourse) Carbon pricing necessary, but not sufficient for achieving long-term climate policy objectives and the implied transitions Sectoral policies to spur technological change and innovation; restructure infrastructure; enable behavioural change reorient investments to green and modernize the economy Eco-efficiency norm: effectiveness in terms of lower throughput (intensity) as the way to green the economy and meet SD goals Pragmatic and goal-oriented eco-modernist policy discourse (winwin) influenced by e.g. energy and innovation system thinking Discourse coalition (agents): Min. Environment + Enterprise, SEPA, SEA, TA, Vinnova, socialliberal/green MPs, E-NGOs, business ass., policy officers Confed. of Swedish Enterprises Policy mix: pricing + sectoral policy, innovation policy, R&D, public investments, infrastructure planning, etc Conclusions (tentative) Two contrasting policy discourses on EM: Both endorsing low-carbon transitions, but different notions on how to green the economy and achieve climate policy objectives Reductionist vs. Systemic approaches to policy for change and discourses on innovation and structural change Consensus or closure? Consensus an instance of discursive closure (dominance, or hegemony) while discursive dislocation and contestation points towards openings for policy change Transition governance (LC) truly a discursive act in (re)framing notions/ideas about possibly extending the scope for thinkable policy pathways, i.e. in widening the possibility space How to establish and promote (positive) narratives that provide direction and attract support for the transition? What strategies of reframing, coalition building and institutionalization for transition policy discourse?

6 Tak!