Self‐enforcing path dependent trajectories? A comparison of the implementation of the EU energy packages in Germany and the Netherlands

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Simon Fink, Eva Ruffing, Luisa Maschlanka, Hermann Lüken genannt Klaßen
{"title":"Self‐enforcing path dependent trajectories? A comparison of the implementation of the EU energy packages in Germany and the Netherlands","authors":"Simon Fink, Eva Ruffing, Luisa Maschlanka, Hermann Lüken genannt Klaßen","doi":"10.1111/rego.12617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1990s, the EU has attempted to create a common electricity market. However, EU legislators are unsatisfied by the results. We argue that differentiated implementation of directives over time creates path dependencies that entrench national differences. The actor constellation of parties and incumbent operators at the beginning of the liberalization path determines how well countries implement liberalizing directives. The implementation, in turn, changes the actor constellation for the next directive, increasing or decreasing the institutional power of incumbents. We illustrate our argument analyzing the implementation of the first three energy market packages in Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries had similar electricity markets at the beginning of market liberalization, but their actor constellation was slightly different. German implementation gradually strengthened vertically integrated utilities, while Dutch implementation dismantled these utilities through unbundling. These paths became self‐reinforcing, counteracting European harmonization efforts.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12617","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the EU has attempted to create a common electricity market. However, EU legislators are unsatisfied by the results. We argue that differentiated implementation of directives over time creates path dependencies that entrench national differences. The actor constellation of parties and incumbent operators at the beginning of the liberalization path determines how well countries implement liberalizing directives. The implementation, in turn, changes the actor constellation for the next directive, increasing or decreasing the institutional power of incumbents. We illustrate our argument analyzing the implementation of the first three energy market packages in Germany and the Netherlands. Both countries had similar electricity markets at the beginning of market liberalization, but their actor constellation was slightly different. German implementation gradually strengthened vertically integrated utilities, while Dutch implementation dismantled these utilities through unbundling. These paths became self‐reinforcing, counteracting European harmonization efforts.
自我强化的路径依赖轨迹?欧盟能源一揽子计划在德国和荷兰的实施情况比较
自 20 世纪 90 年代以来,欧盟一直试图建立一个共同的电力市场。然而,欧盟立法者对结果并不满意。我们认为,随着时间的推移,指令执行的差异化造成了路径依赖,从而巩固了国家差异。在自由化道路的起点,各方和现有运营商的行为体组合决定了各国对自由化指令的执行情况。反过来,执行情况又会改变下一个指令的行为体组合,从而增加或减少现有机构的权力。我们通过分析德国和荷兰前三个能源市场一揽子计划的实施情况来说明我们的论点。这两个国家在市场自由化之初的电力市场相似,但其行为体组合略有不同。德国的实施逐步加强了纵向一体化的公用事业,而荷兰的实施则通过拆分解散了这些公用事业。这些路径自我强化,抵消了欧洲的协调努力。
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
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