Value Change, Value Conflict, and Policy Innovation: Understanding the Opposition to the Market-Based Economic Dispatch of Electricity Scheme in India Using the Multiple Streams Framework.

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Nihit Goyal, Kaveri Iychettira
{"title":"Value Change, Value Conflict, and Policy Innovation: Understanding the Opposition to the Market-Based Economic Dispatch of Electricity Scheme in India Using the Multiple Streams Framework.","authors":"Nihit Goyal,&nbsp;Kaveri Iychettira","doi":"10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As policy innovation is essential for upscaling responsible innovation, understanding its relationship to value change(s) occurring or sought in sociotechnical systems is imperative. In this study, we ask: what are the different types of values in the policy process? And, how does value change influence policy innovation? We propose a disaggregation of values and value change based on a four-stream variant of the multiple streams framework (MSF), a conceptual lens increasingly used for explaining policy innovation in sociotechnical transitions. Specifically, we posit that the values that 'govern' problem framing, policy design, political decision making, and technological diffusion can evolve relatively independently, potentially leading to value conflict. We apply this framework to the ongoing case of the market-based economic dispatch of electricity (MBED) policy in the Indian energy transition using content analysis. We find that the MBED scheme-with its emphasis on efficiency (problem), economic principles (policy), low-cost dispatch (technology), and centralization (politics)-attempts value change in each stream. Each instance of value change is, however, widely contested, with the ensuing value conflicts resulting in significant opposition to this policy innovation. We conclude that a disaggregation of values based on the MSF can facilitate an analysis of value change and value conflict in sociotechnical transitions and lay the foundation for systematically studying the relationships among technological change, value change, and policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663179/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00402-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As policy innovation is essential for upscaling responsible innovation, understanding its relationship to value change(s) occurring or sought in sociotechnical systems is imperative. In this study, we ask: what are the different types of values in the policy process? And, how does value change influence policy innovation? We propose a disaggregation of values and value change based on a four-stream variant of the multiple streams framework (MSF), a conceptual lens increasingly used for explaining policy innovation in sociotechnical transitions. Specifically, we posit that the values that 'govern' problem framing, policy design, political decision making, and technological diffusion can evolve relatively independently, potentially leading to value conflict. We apply this framework to the ongoing case of the market-based economic dispatch of electricity (MBED) policy in the Indian energy transition using content analysis. We find that the MBED scheme-with its emphasis on efficiency (problem), economic principles (policy), low-cost dispatch (technology), and centralization (politics)-attempts value change in each stream. Each instance of value change is, however, widely contested, with the ensuing value conflicts resulting in significant opposition to this policy innovation. We conclude that a disaggregation of values based on the MSF can facilitate an analysis of value change and value conflict in sociotechnical transitions and lay the foundation for systematically studying the relationships among technological change, value change, and policy change.

价值变化、价值冲突与政策创新:利用多流框架理解印度市场经济电力调度计划的反对意见。
由于政策创新对于提升负责任的创新至关重要,因此了解其与社会技术系统中发生或寻求的价值变化的关系是必不可少的。在本研究中,我们的问题是:在政策过程中有哪些不同类型的价值观?价值变化如何影响政策创新?我们提出了一种基于多流框架(MSF)的四流变体的价值观和价值观变化的分解,这是一种概念镜头,越来越多地用于解释社会技术转型中的政策创新。具体来说,我们假设“支配”问题框架、政策设计、政治决策和技术扩散的价值观可以相对独立地演变,从而潜在地导致价值冲突。我们使用内容分析将这一框架应用于印度能源转型中基于市场的经济电力调度(MBED)政策的持续案例。我们发现,MBED方案——强调效率(问题)、经济原则(政策)、低成本调度(技术)和集中化(政治)——试图在每个流中改变价值。然而,价值变化的每一个实例都受到广泛的争议,随之而来的价值冲突导致了对这一政策创新的重大反对。我们的结论是,基于MSF的价值分解有助于分析社会技术转型中的价值变化和价值冲突,并为系统研究技术变革、价值变化和政策变化之间的关系奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信