The world trading system at risk

Geographers tend to see energy systems as intricately interwoven with society and relatively resistant to change. We argue that there is a danger of exaggerating the permanence and stability of the...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0309132516648007

Carbonscapes and beyond: Conceptualizing the instability of oil landscapes

Avoiding the resource curse the case Norway

This paper focuses on agenda change affecting the politics of “fracking operations” in the US, a process of extracting natural gas from underground shale formations. We examine how the movement of this policy issue between the state and federal levels of government has become increasingly contentious because of rising public concern about pollution impacts. Using information obtained from documentary sources and media content analysis, we found that the natural gas policy coalition has largely focused on a political strategy based on maintaining fracking regulatory controls at the state level, while the environmental policy coalition has pushed for increased regulation of drilling practices in general, including a larger policy and oversight role for federal agencies such as EPA.

Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking

. This article examines how powerful policy actors defend themselves against opponents' strategies of conflict expansion through a case study on the oil sands of Alberta. In response to an escalation of criticism of its performance on environmental regulation and related issues, the government of Alberta has pursued a strategy of engaging in several multi-stakeholder consultations. We argue that in examining subsystem change, it is essential to go beyond an examination of formal institutional mechanisms to examine policy impacts. Thus far, despite a significant pluralisation of consultative mechanisms on the oil sands, there is little or no evidence of a shift in power away from pro-oil sands interests. This strategy of selective opening is designed to bolster the legitimacy of the policy process while maintaining control over decision rules and venues.Resume. Cet article etudie le rapport de force et la strategie de defense des acteurs politiques lorsqu'un conflit degenere, comme cela s'est produit dans le dossier des sables bitumineux de l'Alberta. Devant une recrudescence des critiques a l'egard de sa performance au chapitre de la reglementation environnementale, le gouvernement de l'Alberta a adopte une strategie qui consiste a effectuer des consultations avec plusieurs intervenants. Nous soutenons qu'en examinant les changements du sous-systeme, il est vital d'aller au dela de la simple etude des mecanismes institutionnels pour evaluer l'impact des politiques. En depit de la pluralite des mecanismes de consultation mis en place, rien ne semble indiquer qu'une partie quelconque du pouvoir ait echappe aux acteurs de l'exploitation des sables bitumineux. Cette strategie d'ouverture selective est concue pour renforcer la legitimite du processus politique tout en gardant le controle sur les prises de decision et les centres decisionnels.

/pdf/playing-defence-early-responses-to-conflict-expansion-in-the-1k2k3sfqww.pdf

Playing Defence: Early Responses to Conflict Expansion in the Oil Sands Policy Subsystem

Since the 1970s, Norway has had in place a policy regime that allows it to capture a high level of revenue (or economic rent) from the oil and gas sector. Compared to Norway, the level of rent captured by the Alberta government is considerably lower. Assuming governments have similar economic objectives (e.g. to attain the greatest revenues possible from the exploitation of a depleting natural resource), then it is to be expected that the petroleum policy outputs in various states would likewise be similar (Edwards, 1987). The puzzle is even more interesting given the fact that Alberta and Norway are both advanced, industrialized, unitary states that share many similar institutional characteristics. Why then did Norway develop a regime that allowed it to capture a high level of economic rent whilst Alberta did not? This paper argues that fundamental differences in political culture across the cases represent the key explanatory variable for understanding variation in the levels of captured rent. In doing so, this paper rejects two other explanatory approaches, namely the differences in resource approach and the concept of the obsolescing bargain. The overall focus is on domestic determinants of policy outcomes and international determinants are largely ignored.

Collecting Rent: A Comparative Analysis of Oil and Gas Fiscal Policy Regimes in Alberta, Canada and Norway

Governance increasingly involves the opening up of decision-making to greater participation by the public. Multistakeholderism is one manifestation of this increased public participation and, in the context of oil sands development, has led to the establishment of groups like the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) and the Oil Sands Consultations Multistakeholder Committee (MSC). The purpose of this paper is to trace the historical development of the structures of interest representation in the context of the development of the Alberta oil sands. It is argued that oil sands development and governance has been dominated by the interests of two key groups of actors, government and industry, and that the emergence of key multistakeholder bodies has thus far done little to alter the historic government-industry model of interest representation.

Multistakeholderism in Oil Sands Governance

Given the proliferation and intensification of regional trade agreements (RTAs) and bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) in the global economy, it is worthwhile to examine some of the key approaches for understanding why states cooperate through trade agreements. Evidence suggests that traditional economic explanations based primarily on welfare gains hold little in the way of explanatory power, especially for understanding larger country involvement in trade agreements with smaller countries. One theory suggests that side-payments to the larger country help explain why larger countries may be involved in such arrangements. Building upon political-economic explanations for economic strategies, this paper presents a three-level model that emphasizes the importance of interests and conditions at the multilateral and regional levels for influencing bilateral initiatives. Through an analysis of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement, this paper highlights the interconnected nature of state interests at multiple levels, as well as some of the shortcomings of purely economic explanations for understanding why states enter trade agreements.

Jeffrey P. T. Phillips

Papers

Playing Defence: Early Responses to Conflict Expansion in the Oil Sands Policy Subsystem

Collecting Rent: A Comparative Analysis of Oil and Gas Fiscal Policy Regimes in Alberta, Canada and Norway

Multistakeholderism in Oil Sands Governance

Going to the Next Level: The Political-Economy of Bilateralism - A Case Study of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement