Search

Related Articles This article examines the narrative framework in European Union (EU) research and innovation projects, focusing on symbolic practices and terminology. The analysis includes over five years of ethnographic research, and 20 European projects funded by Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe, and Erasmus+ programs. It explores different ways project actors internalize and reproduce the EU's symbolic power through its policies, particularly the ambiguous concept of “innovation.” Using Bourdieu's theory of practice, the research highlights the way social structures within the “project field” influence dynamics and outcomes, often resulting in a gap between rhetoric and reality. The study also uncovers broader political and social implications of these practices, calling for critical reflection of their impact. In its conclusion, the authors discuss the challenges of maintaining genuine innovation amidst bureaucratic requirements and the EU's symbolic power, advocating for more nuanced and context‐aware project practices.Kanol, Direnç. 2022. “Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe.” Politics & Policy 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492.Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. “Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control.” Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458.Von Malmborg, Fredrik. 2023. “Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Argumentative Discourse Analysis: The Case of the ‘Energy Efficiency First’ Principle in EU Energy and Climate Policy.” Politics & Policy 51(2):222–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12525. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emissions trading schemes (ETS) have spread across the globe to tackle climate change. However, limited attention has been given to how ETS characteristics and designs differ and why. We use the concept of institutional complementarity to explore how the EU ETS and South Korea's ETS (K‐ETS) adapt to complement established political economy. The EU ETS is characterized as a market with stakeholder ownership, while the K‐ETS is more regulatory in nature with government leadership. The EU ETS complements a decentralized political system with liberalized energy market, and the K‐ETS became compatible with the centralized majoritarian politics and a regulated electricity market. The ETSs have evolved incrementally, and they are not likely to link in the foreseeable future due to divergence. We suggest a strong focus on "how to adapt" an ETS to its own institution rather than adopting the established blueprint model in countries with a strong regulatory style of governance. Related Articles: Caliskan, Cantay. 2020. "The Influence of Elite Networks on Green Policy Making." Politics & Policy 48(6): 1104–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12382. Tanaka, Yugo, Andrew Chapman, Tetsuo Tezuka, and Shigeki Sakurai. 2020. "Multiple Streams and Power Sector Policy Change: Evidence from the Feed‐In Tariff Policy Process in Japan." Politics & Policy 48(3): 464–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12357. von Malmborg, Fredrik. 2023. "Combining the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Argumentative Discourse Analysis: The Case of the 'Energy Efficiency First' Principle in EU Energy and Climate Policy." Politics & Policy 51(2): 222–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12525. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article combines, in a complementary way, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) with argumentative discourse analysis to analyze the politics of the "energy efficiency first" (EE1) principle as a new legal institute in European Union energy and climate policy. Two different discourses and storylines were identified. The first is where the meaning of energy efficiency policy is to fulfill multiple benefits. It is associated with a strong regulation of EE1. The second is where the purpose of energy efficiency policy is primarily to contribute to mitigating climate change. It is associated with weak regulation of EE1. Four advocacy coalitions with different secondary beliefs regarding the EE1 principle were identified. Analyzing the inter‐discursive communication between different coalitions provides insights to the policy‐oriented learning taking place. It is concluded that studies using the ACF could merit from focusing more on narratives and communication between belief systems. Related Articles: Kanol, Direnç. 2022. "Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe." Politics & Policy 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492. Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. "Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control." Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458. O'Donovan, Kristin T. 2018. "Does the Narrative Policy Framework Apply to Local Policy Issues?" Politics & Policy 46(4): 532–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12265. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]