Advertisement

Strangers at the gate: the role of multidimensional ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in biofuel policy developments in the USA and European Union

  • Grace Skogstad
  • Matt WilderEmail author
Research Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

This article contributes to scholarly understanding of how policy ideas and institutions interact to affect policy change by investigating why legislation mandating the use of biofuels in transport vehicles has been upheld in the USA but scaled back in the European Union. To explain this puzzle, the article advances propositions regarding the role of multidimensional policy ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in legislative agenda-setting. Using structural topic modelling and qualitative methods, the analyses demonstrate that differences in action frames follow from agenda-setting institutions. The corporate structure of the European Commission ensures that EU agenda-setters are reasonably attentive to policy anomalies. By contrast, individuals with agenda-setting authority in the US Congress are liable to discount anomalies by limiting their focus to certain aspects of multidimensional policy issues. Moreover, individuals with gatekeeping authority may prevent repeal bills from accessing the legislative agenda.

Keywords

Action frames Agenda-setting Institutional gatekeeping Policy anomalies Policy change Policy ideas 

Notes

References

  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Bang, G. (2010). Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy in the United States? Energy Policy, 38, 1645–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Ideas and policy change. Governance, 26(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednar, J., Ferejohn, J., & Garrett, G. (1996). The politics of European federalism. International Review of Law and Economics., 16(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Béland, D., & Cox, R. (2011). Introduction: Ideas and politics. In D. Béland & R. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and politics in social science research (pp. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(1), 993–1022.Google Scholar
  10. Blyth, M. (2007). Powering, puzzling, or persuading? The mechanisms of building institutional orders. International Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouwen, P. (2009). European Commission. In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, actors and issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bracmort, K. (2018). The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  13. Breetz, H. L. (2017). Regulating carbon emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC): US and California case studies. Environmental Science and Policy, 77, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casinge, E. (2015). Parliament rubber stamps EU biofuels reform amid final controversy. Euractiv. April 29. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/parliament-rubber-stamps-eu-biofuels-reform-amid-final-controversy/.
  15. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. O. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: an alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Commission of the European Communities. (1997). Energy for the future: Renewable sources of energy. In White paper for a community strategy and action plan. COM(97) 599 final 26 November, Brussels.Google Scholar
  17. Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Green paper. In Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply. COM(2000)769 final, 29 November. Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. Commission of the European Communities. (2003a). Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. Official Journal of the European Union L, 123/42. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02009L0028-20130701andrid=17.
  19. Commission of the European Communities. (2003b). Directive 2003/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003L0017andfrom=EN.
  20. Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Biofuels progress report. Report of the progress made in the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in the member states of the European Union. COM(2006)845. Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028andrid=1.
  22. Commission of the European Communities. (2015). Directive (EU) 2015/1513 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/98/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L1513andfrom=EN.
  23. Council of the European Union. (2014). Proposal on indirect land-use change: Council reaches agreement. 13 June. Available at: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/proposal-indirect-land-use-change-council-reaches-agreement/.
  24. Crombez, C., Groseclose, T., & Krehbiel, K. (2006). Gatekeeping. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Denzau, A. T., & Mackay, R. J. (1983). Gatekeeping and monopoly power of committees: An analysis of sincere and sophisticated behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 27(4), 740–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Doornbosch, R., & Steenblik, R. (2007). Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the disease? Roundtable on sustainable development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28(1), 38–50.Google Scholar
  28. Duffield, J. A., & Collins, K. (2006). Evolution of renewable energy. Choices: The magazine of food, farm and resource issues, 21(1), 9–14.Google Scholar
  29. Eisenstein, J., Ahmed, A., & Xing, E. P. (2011). Sparse additive generative models of text. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning. Bellevue, WA. Retrieved from http://repository.emu.edu/machine_learning/210/.
  30. Elster, J. (1994). The nature and scope of rational-choice explanation. In M. Martin & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 311–322). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Regulatory impact analysis: Renewable fuel standard Program. EPA420-R-07-004. Washington, DC. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Assessment and Standards Division.Google Scholar
  32. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Biofuels and the environment: The first triennial report to congress. EPA/600/R-10/183F. December. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Biofuels and the environment: The second triennial report to congress. EPA/600/R-18/195. June 29. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  34. European Commission. (2010). `Report from the Commission on indirect land-use change related to biofuels and bioliquids. In COM(2010) 8ll final (p. 14). Dec 22, 2010, Brussels.Google Scholar
  35. European Commission. (2012). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 90/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. In COM(2012) 595 final. Oct 17, 2012. Brussels.Google Scholar
  36. Grossman, P. Z. (2012). The logic of deflective action: US energy shocks and the US policy process’. Journal of Public Policy, 32(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grossman, P. Z. (2013). US energy policy and the pursuit of failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hall, M. (2013). Parliament’s lead biofuels MEP in last ditch battle for ILUC recognition. Euractiv. September 11. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/parliament-s-lead-biofuels-mep-in-last-ditch-battle-for-iluc-recognition/.
  40. Humalisto, N. H. (2015). Climate policy integration and governing indirect land-use changes—Actors in the EU’s biofuel policy-formulation. Land Use Policy., 45, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving decision-making in democratic politics: Attention, choice, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Keating, D., & Simon, F. (2018). EU strikes deal on 32% renewable energy target and palm oil ban after all-night session. Euractiv. 14 June. Available at: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eu-strikes-deal-on-32-renewable-energy-target-and-palm-oil-ban-after-all-night-session/.
  44. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  45. Kollman, Ken. (1997). Inviting friends to lobby: Interest groups, ideological bias, and congressional committees. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 519–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kreppel, A., & Oztas, B. (2017). Leading the band or just playing the tune? Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission, Comparative Political Studies, 50(8), 1118–1150.Google Scholar
  47. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lupo, N. (2018). The Commission’s power to withdraw legislative proposals and its parliamentarisation: Between technical and political grounds. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(2), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  51. Mondou, M., Skogstad, G., & Houle, D. (2014). Policy Image resilience, multidimensionality, and policy image management: A study of US biofuel policy. Journal of Public Policy, 34(1), 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nugent, N., & Rhinhard, M. (2016). Is the European Commission really in decline? Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(5), 1199–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Palier, B. (2004). French welfare reform in comparative perspective. Revue française de sociologie, 45(Supplement), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plott, C. R., & Levine, M. E. (1978). A model of agenda influence on committee decisions. The American Economic Review, 68(1), 146–160.Google Scholar
  55. Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical explanation and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Princen, S., & Rhinard, M. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1119–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. The American Political Science Review, 74(2), 432–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  59. Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., et al. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  62. Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1992). Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur: Evidence from local government. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  64. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shapiro, S. A. (1994). Political oversight and the deterioration of regulatory policy. Administrative Law Review, 46, 1.Google Scholar
  66. Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37(3), 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. The American Political Science Review, 81(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1994). Positive theories of congressional institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(2), 149–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Skogstad, G. (2017). Policy feedback and self-reinforcing and self-undermining processes in EU biofuels policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Taddy, M. (2012). On estimation and selection for topic models. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 1184–1193). Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved from http://www.jmlr.org/proceedings/papers/v22/tady12/taddy12.pdf.
  72. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tullock, G. (1981). Why so much stability? Public Choice, 37(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. United States. Department of Energy. (2018). Key federal legislation. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/key_legislation. Accessed 15 July 2018.
  75. Weyland, K. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion: Lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), 262–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations