Rethinking the procedural in policy instrument ‘Compounds’: a renewable energy policy perspective

References

• Adam, C., Hurka, S., Christoph Knill, B., Peters, G., & Steinebach, Y. (2019). Introducing vertical policy coordination to comparative policy analysis: The missing link between policy production and implementation. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 21(5), 499-517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007, November). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access Published, 18(4), 543–571.
   Google Scholar
• Béland, D. (2010). Reconsidering policy feedback: How policies affect politics. Administration & Society, 42(5), 568–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S., & Hoffmann, M. (2018). The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments. Policy Sciences, 51(2), 189–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertoldi, P., & Huld, T. (2006). Tradable certificates for renewable electricity and energy savings. Energy Policy, 34(2), 212–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Gunn, J. A. E., Pope, J., & Retief, F. (2015). Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 97–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonekamp, P. G. M. (2006). Actual interaction effects between policy measures for energy efficiency—a qualitative matrix method and quantitative simulation results for households. Energy, 31(14), 2848–2873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braathen, N. A. (2005). Environmental agreements used in combination with other policy instruments. In The handbook of environmental voluntary agreements (pp. 335–364). Springer, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Braathen, N. A. (2007). Instrument mixes for environmental policy: How many stones should be used to kill a bird? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics. 1(2), 185–236.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, L., & Neuhoff, K. (2008). Comparison of feed-in tariff, quota and auction mechanisms to support wind power development. Renewable Energy, 33(8), 1854–1867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrigan, C., & Mills, R. W. (2019). Organizational process, rulemaking pace, and the shadow of judicial review. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 721–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coglianese, C. “Listening, learning, leading: A framework for regulatory excellence”. Penn Program on Regulation. Available at: https://Www.Law.Upenn.Edu/Live/Files/4946-PprfinalconvenersReportpdf 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. (2003). Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise? Comparing models of governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 131–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couture, T., Busch, H., Hansen, T., & Leidreiter, A. “REN21-Renewables in cities 2019 global status report-preliminary findings,” 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C., & Fawcett, P. (2017). Metagovernance, network structure, and legitimacy: Developing a heuristic for comparative governance analysis. Administration & Society, 49(9), 1223–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Río, P. (2012). The dynamic efficiency of feed-in tariffs: The impact of different design elements. Energy Policy,41, 139–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Río, P., Silvosa, A. C., & Gómez, G. I. (2011). Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: A qualitative analysis of different options. Energy Policy, 39(4), 1897–1908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2014). Governments for the future: Building the strategic and agile state. Sitra Studies, 80, 18.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley, S. E., & Xie, Z. (2020). Designing a choice architecture for regulators. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 151–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, O. V., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fernández-I-Marín, X. A. V. I. E., Knill, C., R., & Steinebach, Y. (2021). Studying policy design quality in comparative perspective. In American political science review (pp. 1–17).
   Google Scholar
• Fouquet, R. (2016). Path dependence in energy systems and economic development. Nature Energy, 1(8), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Gleeson, D., Legge, D., O’Neill, D., & Pfeffer, M. (2011). Negotiating tensions in developing organizational policy capacity: Comparative lessons to be drawn. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(3), 237–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabosky, P. N. (1994). Green Markets: Environmental Regulation by the Private Sector. Law & Policy, 16(4), 419–448.
   Google Scholar
• Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Designing smart regulation. In Ed. B. Hutter. A Reader in Environmental Law (pp. 305-334). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, D. J., & Lee, D. (2020). Energy decentralization in California and New York: Conflicts in the politics of shared solar and community choice. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 121, 109716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government (1st American ed.). Public policy and politics. Find this resource. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The tools of government in the digital age. New York: Macmillan International Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hou, Y., & Brewer, G. A. (2010). Substitution and supplementation between co-functional policy instruments: evidence from state budget stabilization practices. Public Administration Review, 70(6), 914–924.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the ‘Hollow State’: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2020). Challenges in applying design thinking to public policy: Dealing with the varieties of policy formulation and their vicissitudes. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 49-65.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Introduction: The Importance of policy design: Effective processes, tools and outcomes. In Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 3–19). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2020). Designing public participation in the policy process: A critical review of procedural instrument theory. In Michael Faure (Eds.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law, (pp. 88–100). Cheltanham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Rayner, J. (2017). The elements of effective program design: A two-level analysis. In Handbook of Policy Formulation, (p. 129), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2014). The two orders of governance failure: Design mismatches and policy capacity issues in modern governance. Policy and Society, 33(4), 317–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2016). A chilles' heels of governance: critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance,10(4), 301–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2018). Policy instruments and policy design choices: Selecting substantive and procedural tools in public policymaking. In Eds. M. Howlett, & I. Mukherjee, Routledge handbook of policy design (pp. 77–86). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M., & Tosun, J. (Eds.). (2018). Policy styles and policy-making: Exploring the linkages. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, L., & Urpelainen, J. (2015). Interests, institutions, and climate policy: Explaining the choice of policy instruments for the energy sector. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 52–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutter, B. M. (1997). Compliance: Regulation and environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iliopoulos, T. G., Fermeglia, M., & Vanheusden, B. (2020). The EU’s 2030 climate and energy policy framework: How net metering slips through its net. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 29(2), 245–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, A. J., & Moore, B. (2020). Durable by design?: Policy feedback in a changing climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kent, A., & Mercer, D. (2006). Australia’s mandatory renewable energy target (MRET): An assessment. Energy Policy, 34(9), 1046–1062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J. E., & Tang, T. (2021). Preventing early lock-in with technology-specific policy designs: The renewable portfolio standards and diversity in renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 123, 109738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klijn, E.-H., Koppenjan, J., & Termeer, K. (1995). Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration, 73(3), 437–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwakkel, J. H., & Haasnoot, M. (2019). Supporting DMDU: A taxonomy of approaches and tools. In Editors: Vincent A. W. J. Marchau, Warren E. Walker, Pieter J. T. M. Bloemen,  & Steven W. Popper (Eds.), Decision making under deep uncertainty (pp. 355–374). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, A. (2019). Collaborative governance in health and technology policy: The use and effects of procedural policy instruments. Administration & Society, 51(2), 272–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lejano, R. P., & Shankar, S. (2013). The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India. Policy Sciences, 46(1), 83–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, W., Noble, B., Gunn, J., & Jaeger, J. A. G. (2015). A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 116–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35-58.
   Google Scholar
• Lipp, J. (2007). Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5481–5495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Structure and process, politics and policy: Administrative arrangements and the political control of agencies. Va. L. Rev, 75(2), 431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menanteau, P., Finon, D., & Lamy, M. L. (2003). Prices versus quantities: Choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy. Energy Policy, 31(8), 799–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2017). Creating public value: Tightening connections between policy design and public management. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 170–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munck af Rosenschöld, J., Rozema, J. G., & Frye‐Levine, L. A. (2014). Institutional inertia and climate change: A review of the new institutionalist literature. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 5(5), 639–648.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, S., & Howlett, M. (2016). From robustness to resilience: Avoiding policy traps in the long term. Sustainability Science,11(6), 909–917.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nair, S., & Howlett, M. (2017). Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy & Politics, 45(1), 103–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pablo, D. R. (2010). Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements. Energy Policy, 38(9), 4978–4989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, B., Capano, G. G., Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Chou, M.-H., & Ravinet, P. 2018. Designing for policy effectiveness: Defining and understanding a concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2009). What can we expect from performance measurement activities? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(3), 505–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• REN21, Renewables. “global status report, Paris, 2019”, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbloom, D., Meadowcroft, J., & Cashore, B. (2019). Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 168–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotberg, R. I. (2014). Good governance means performance and results. Governance, 27(3), 511–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shammin, M. R., & Bullard, C. W. (2009). Impact of cap-and-trade policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on US households. Ecological Economics, 68(8–9), 2432–2438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto, D. D. L., Mejdalani, A. N., Nogales, A., Tolmasquim, M., & Hallack, M. C. M. (2019). Advancing the policy design and regulatory framework for renewable energies in latin america and the caribbean for grid-scale and distributed generation (Vol. 785). Inter-American Development Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Štreimikienė, D., & Balezentis, T. (2016). Kaya identity for analysis of the main drivers of GHG emissions and feasibility to implement EU “20–20–20” targets in the baltic states. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1108–1113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, P., & Nie, P. Y. (2015). A comparative study of feed-in tariff and renewable portfolio standard policy in renewable energy industry. Renewable Energy, 74, 255–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tasic, S. (2011). Are regulators rational? Journal des conomistes et des tudes Humaines,17(1).
   Google Scholar
• Thacher, D., & Rein, M. (2004). Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance, 17(4), 457–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK (2019). “Feed-in tariffs: Get money for generating your own electricity.” Accessed January 17, 2020. https://www.gov.uk/feed-in-tariffs.
   Google Scholar
• USDOE. United States Department of Energy. Energy.gov. “Tax credits, rebates & savings.” Accessed January 17, 2020. https://www.energy.gov/savings/dsire-page.
   Google Scholar
• Vedung, E., Rist, R. C., & Marie-Louise, B.-V. (1998). Carrots, sticks & sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, W. E., Marchau, V. A. W. J., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2013). Uncertainty in the framework of policy analysis. In Public policy analysis (pp. 215–261). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2017). Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Boston, US: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zervos, A., & Adib, R. REN21, renewables 2018 global status report. In Renewable energy policy network for the 21st. Century, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., & Wang, Y. (2017). How to reduce household carbon emissions: A review of experience and policy design considerations. Energy Policy, 102, 116–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar