1
Mapping the Intensity of Finnish Climate PoliciesInternal workshop 23.9.2016Visa Kivisaari, Jani Lukkarinen, Mikael Hildén, Eeva Primmer & Paula Kivimaa WP5
2
Outline of the presentation1. Key questions and ideas behind the study2. Data & Methods3. Preliminary results4. Where do we go from here?
3
Policy mix approach to transitions”The rationale behind [analysing policy mixes] is the multiple market, system and institutional failures in place requiring multi-faceted policy intervention.” [Reichardt & Rogge, 2016: 63]
“In spite of a growing body of research on issues like countries’ climate mitigation strategies, climate policy change, and diffusion of specific policies, accumulating knowledge is hampered by the limited comparability of findings.” [Schaffrin et al., 2015: 257]
”…policies could be disruptive in the institutional context shaking the regime in a way that reduces the value of existing practices and technologies…” [Kivimaa & Kern, 2016: 207]
4
• What are the policies that potentially affect the transition?
Constraining? Advancing?
• How can one measure the ‘strength’ or ‘intensity’ of a policy?
Effective <-> rhetoric/symbolic
The questions and tasks
5
The basic idea
1) For a policy to have any impact, it must display certain basic characteristics that can be objectively determined. CPA index [Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S., 2015]
2) It is possible to measure the (potential) impacts on energy transitions by exploring the TIS functions that the policy is expected to promote.TIS analysis [Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F., 2016]
(semi-)quantitative coding work: turning qualitative data into quantitative measurement
6
• Policies and Measures (PAMs) reported to EU in 2015 and policies of Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment
Policy data
7
Index of Climate Policy Activity (CPA)
• Integration – there is a recognisible intragration into a wider set of policies
• Scope – it has a clear scope
• Objective - it has specific objectives
• Budget – it has a budget
• Implementation – it is being implemented
• Monitoring – it is being monitored
(Each criterion can get a value between 0 and 1)
8
Coding: CPA example 1:Voluntary energy efficiency agreements• Integration – 0,5
• Scope – 0,15
• Objective – 0,33
• Budget – 0
• Implementation – 0,25
• Monitoring – 0,5
• Coded value 0,289
9
Coding: CPA example 2:Promoting wind power (tariff system)• Integration – 0,5• Scope – 0• Objective – 0,13• Budget – 1• Implementation – 0,75• Monitoring – 1
• Coded value 0,563
10
Index of Climate Policy Activity (CPA)
Intensity Measure
Mean
Integration 0,6Scope 0,3Objective 0,06Budget 0,08Implementation 0,67Monitoring 0,57CPA Index 0,38
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
All policies arranged by the index value
11
Some preliminary CPA-Index results
• In general, most of the emission reductions are allocated to few policy instruments.
• Many sectors (particularly transport & agriculture) remain latent in policy intensity measures.
• Majority of policies lack budget and clear objective -> suggests a weak design
• All the significant energy transition policies are not reported in PAMs.
12
Creative and disruptive policy functions (TIS)C1 Knowledge development and diffusionC2 Influence on the direction of searchC3 Entrepreneurial experimentationC4 Market formationC5 Legitimation/AdvocacyC6 Resource mobilisation
D1 New Control policiesD2 Significant changes in regime rulesD3 Reduced support for dominant regime technologiesD4 Changes in social networks, replacement of key actors
(Each criterion can get a value of 0, 0,5 or 1)
13
Coding: TIS example 1:Voluntary energy efficiency agreementsC1 Knowledge development and diffusionC2 Influence on the direction of searchC3 Entrepreneurial experimentationC4 Market formationC5 Legitimation/AdvocacyC6 Resource mobilisation
D1 New Control policiesD2 Significant changes in regime rulesD3 Reduced support for dominant regime technologiesD4 Changes in social networks, replacement of key actors
14
Coding: TIS example 2:Promoting wind power (tariff system)C1 Knowledge development and diffusion
C2 Influence on the direction of search
C3 Entrepreneurial experimentation
C4 Market formation
C5 Legitimation/Advocacy
C6 Resource mobilisation
D1 New Control policies
D2 Significant changes in regime rules
D3 Reduced support for dominant regime technologies
D4 Changes in social networks, replacement of key actors
15
TIS-functions
C1 Knowledge
develo
pment a
nd diffusion
C7 Influen
ce on th
e dire
ction of sear
ch
C4 Entre
preneu
rial ex
perimen
tation
C2 Mark
et form
ation
C6 Legiti
mation/A
dvocac
y
C5 Resource
mobilis
ation
D1 New Contro
l polici
es
D2 Significan
t chan
ges in
regim
e rules
D3 Reduced
support
for dominan
t regi
me tech
nologies
D4 Change
s in so
cial n
etworks
, replac
emen
t of k
ey act
ors0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Others (6)Agriculture & forestry (6)Waste management (4)Land-use planning (2)Buildings (9)Transport (4)Energy efficiency (4)Renewable energy (4)
16
Some preliminary TIS results
• Experimentation and knowledge creation score surprisingly low.
• Agricultural policies remain a non-factor.
• Energy policies emphasise constructive more than destructive elements.
• Waste and buildings account for most of the disruptive policy elements.
• The found disruptive functions (new control policies and regime rules) are system-level instead of technology-specific (reduced support).
17
Reflection• The strenght of policies can be determined ’reasonably objectively’ (i.e.
estimates are independently repeatable, but require transparent reasoning)
• Is the low disruptive score an indication of a missing policy function or a demonstration of the difficulty in detecting it?
• Overall, all sectors contain policies that are weak in every respect. Do these policies have some other function(s) [such as increasing the acceptability of the ’stronger’ policies, functioning as catalysts for future policies or are they ’pure’ lip service?
• Evaluation of policy intensity and TIS-functions tell fairly little in isolation - relations, comparisons and groupings are the key.
• How do the two approaches complement each other, do they?
18
Sources
Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008
Reichardt, K. & Rogge, K. (2016). How the policy mix impacts innovation: Findings from company case studies on offshore wind in Germany. Environmental Innovations and Societal Transitions 18, 62-81.
Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S. (2015). Toward a Comparative Measure of Climate Policy Output. Policy Studies Journal, 43(2), 257–282. http://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12095
Kiitos!