Advertisement

Belief Conflicts and Coalition Structures Driving Subnational Policy Responses: The Case of Swiss Regulation of Unconventional Gas Development

  • Karin Ingold
  • Manuel Fischer
Chapter

Abstract

Although there are no immediate projects of unconventional gas exploitation using hydraulic fracturing in Switzerland, the issue is on the political agenda. In federalist Switzerland, cantons are responsible for attributing the respective concessions to private companies according to the usual regulatory procedure of mineral and gas extraction. Yet, policy change has happened in different cantons, including moratoriums and planned bans of hydraulic fracturing techniques. This chapter compares the cantons of Neuchâtel, Bern, and Vaud, where slightly differing regulations are currently in place. Based on the empirical analysis of coalitions, their beliefs and preferences, as well as political and technical information exchange among them, we aim to understand the current policy outputs in the respective cantons, as well as the potential for future policy change.

Keywords

Coalition Structure Threat Perception Policy Output Advocacy Coalition Advocacy Coalition Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Batagelj, Vladimir, and Andrej Mrvar. 1996. Pajek – Program for Large Network Analysis. Lubljana, Slovenia: University of Ljubljana. http://mrvar.fdv.uni-lj.si/pajek/.
  2. Baumgartner, Frank, and Bryan Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beyers, Jan, and Caelesta Braun. 2014. Ties that Count. Explaining Interest Group Access to Policymakers. Journal of Public Policy 34(1): 93–121.Google Scholar
  4. Birkland, Thomas A. 2006. Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic Events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. EIA. 2014. Annual Energy Outlook 2014: With projections to 2040. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf.
  6. Fischer, Manuel. 2014. Coalition Structures and Policy Change in a Consensus Democracy. The Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 344–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, Manuel. 2015. Institutions and Coalitions in Policy Processes: A Cross-Sectoral Comparison. Journal of Public Policy 35(2): 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grimm, Claude. 2013. Celtique Energie convoite le gaz de schiste neuchâteloise. Le Courrier, June 12. www.lecourrier.ch/110340/celtique_energie_convoite_le_gaz_de_schiste_neuchatelois.
  9. Henry, Adam Douglas. 2011. Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ingold, Karin, and Frédéric Varone. 2012. Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson, Robert B., Vengosh Avner, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O’Sullivan, and Gabrielle Pétron. 2014. The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 39: 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. John, Peter. 2012. Analyzing Public Policy. Textbook in Policy Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Kübler, Daniel. 2001. Understanding Policy Change with the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 8: 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laumann, Edward O., Peter V. Marsden, and David Prensky. 1983. The Boundary Specification Problem in Network Analysis. In Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction, ed. R.S. Burt. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Leifeld, Philip, and Volker Schneider. 2012. Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leu, Werner. 2013. Gasexploration in der Schweiz: Wieso die heutigen Anstrengungen? – Akteure, Projekte, neue Technologien und Potenzial der unkonventionellen Gasressourcen. Wabern: Kolloquium Swisstopo.Google Scholar
  17. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 2010. Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal 24(3): 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nohrstedt, Daniel. 2007. Crisis and Policy Reformcraft: Advocacy Coalitions and Crisis-Induced Change in Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy. Doctoral thesis. Uppsala: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.Google Scholar
  20. Nohrstedt, Daniel. 2008. The Politics of Crisis Policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy. Policy Studies Journal 36(2): 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nohrstedt, Daniel, and Christopher Weible. 2010. The Logic of Policy Change after Crisis: Proximity and Subsystem Interaction. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 1(2): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pasquier, F., M. Burkhart, P. O. Mojon, and S. Gogniat. 2013. Feuille 1163 Travers – Atlas géol. Suisse 1:25’000, Notice expl. 162. Bern: Swisstopo.Google Scholar
  23. Sabatier, Paul, and Christopher M. Weible. 2005. Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California. Policy Studies Journal 33(2): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sabatier, Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. 2007. The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, 189–222. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schlager, Edella. 1995. Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions Within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Sciences 28: 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sciarini, Pascal, Manuel Fischer, and Denise Traber. 2015. Political Decision-Making in Switzerland. The Consensus Model under Pressure. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SFOE. 2009. Elektrizitätsstatistik 2009. Bern: Bundesamt für Energie. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=de&dossier_id=00768.
  29. Stevens, Paul. 2010. The ‘Shale Gas Revolution’: Hype and Reality. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  30. Tsebelis, George. 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25: 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vatter, Adrian. 2009. Lijphardt Expanded: Three Dimensions of Democracy in Advanced OECD Countries? European Political Science Review 1(1): 125–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Ingold
    • 1
    • 3
  • Manuel Fischer
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Political Science and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Social Sciences, EawagDübendorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations