Search

Globally, several governments have adopted various forms of green stimulus policies (GSP) to manage environmental challenges and revitalize their national economies during crises. However, research on the varieties of GSPs within a country and the possible drivers of this diversity remain scarce. This study qualitatively compares the green growth and green new deal policies adopted under two different administrations in South Korea. Although both GSPs share similar components, they vary in their focus on nuclear energy and international cooperation. This study postulates that these differences are associated with the degree to which each administration saw GSP through the lens of a developmental state. Besides providing a comparative tool for examining GSPs and their elements, this research contributes to GSP research in a non-Western developed-country setting by highlighting how domestic factors shape the nature and composition of GSPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why did previous Korean governments adopt nuclear energy as a baseline for electricity generation and promote the exportation of nuclear energy? Why did the current Korean government dramatically change its energy policy to energy transition and postnuclear energy in 2017? How did politicians, bureaucrats, industries, civil society organizations, and political epistemic communities interact in the nuclear energy policymaking process? This study addresses contemporary changes in Korean nuclear energy policy by applying the concepts "nuclear energy developmental state" and "political epistemic community." This paper attempts to identify the relevant actors in state transition, interactive matrices in policymaking processes, and the mechanisms by which the energy baseline has shifted. A comprehensive analysis of the President's National Policy Priority Agenda, National Energy Basic Plans, the Basic Plan of Long‐Term Electricity Supply and Demand, meeting minutes of relevant government committees, and interview data of relevant actors facilitates understanding of the formation, evolution, and transformation of the contemporary state of nuclear energy throughout different political administrations, including the Lee (2008–2012), Park (2013–2016), and Moon administrations (2017–Present). I argue that political coalitions are integral in nuclear energy policy change in specific and general energy policy. Compared to highlighted agents such as bureaucrats, antinuclear movements, and epistemic communities, the political epistemic community—closely connecting knowledge, value, and power—plays a role in developing different types of political coalitions through nuclear energy decision‐making. During the Lee and Park administrations, a nuclear energy developmental state emerged with a strong coalition between politicians, bureaucrats, and the nuclear industry with support from the nuclear energy epistemic community. However, the Moon administration is characterized by a different coalition that includes politicians, civil society organizations, and the postnuclear energy epistemic community, which propels energy transition from nuclear energy to a decentralized renewable energy system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing studies have argued that regional cooperation is urgent in order to tackle transboundary air pollution. However, few studies have operationalized atmospheric cooperation steps and theorized the underlying logic of asymmetry as a barrier to further cooperation. Given that air quality degradation and its impact on neighboring countries have worsened around the world, it is imperative to identify a framework with which to analyze the degree of transboundary cooperation. This study aims to provide a general explanation of barriers to transboundary air pollution cooperation and test the explanation empirically through a case study of China and South Korea. Our findings suggest that asymmetric barriers—in state capacity, economic interests, domestic pressures, and international pressure—impede the process of cooperation in atmospheric politics. This systematic analysis points to policy suggestions including the improvement of regional epistemic community, economic co-benefits, and multilateral institution that enhance the chances of reducing transboundary air pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]