Suchergebnisse

This article explores Japanese perceptions of nuclear technology from 1945 to 1956, the early stage of the introduction of nuclear technology, by using discourses of the government and of antinuclear civil movements. It is based on the theoretical framework that discourses construct social perceptions of science and technology. For this purpose, statements such as official documents of the Japanese government and declarations made by the antinuclear movement were used as main resources of analysis. This article finds that various technological aspects influenced the formation of the Japanese nuclear technological system. In addition, the Japanese government tried to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons. It tried to justify its 'peaceful use of nuclear power' by portraying itself as the sole victim of nuclear weapons while hiding its intention to develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, the nuclear safety myth was formed at the beginning of the introduction of nuclear technology. As a result, we can see that in Japan, the nuclear safety myth was growing from the beginning of the introduction of nuclear technology amid a dichotomous understanding of good and bad uses of nuclear power and the desire to enter an advanced state of science and technology.

As liberal democracies, what can the United States, Europe, and Japan be expected to embrace as "democratic" solutions to global environmental problems such as climate change? It is our argument that contradictions in liberal democratic politics lead these states to advocate solutions that are nature-as-commodity oriented and that idealize the notion of "managed nature." In the case of climate change, we specifically argue that liberal democracies can be expected to pursue a policy regime of "efficient global warming."

In recent years, the Green New Deal has moved from relative obscurity to front and centre of policy discussions and public debates about how to respond to the climate crisis. It has been credited with radically changing the nature of the conversation on climate change and with re-energizing the environmental movement at a critical time. All Green New Deal proposals share an emphasis on the need for governments (rather than markets) to lead the energy transition. However, they differ in other respects. This Handbook analyses the fundamentals underlying all Green New Deals as well as exploring national and regional variations. It is divided into three parts. The first part examines the political economy of the Green New Deal focussing not just on how proposals will be costed but also on opportunities for a fundamental transformation of both national economies and the global economic system. The second part explores issues of justice, which are central to many Green New Deal proposals, including Indigenous rights, racial and gender equity, and justice for the Global South. In the third part, authors detail case studies of Green New Deal proposals and plans at the local, national, and regional level. This book will be an invaluable research and reference volume for students and scholars in economics, politics, sociology, geography, and environmental studies. It should also be of interest to those actively involved in climate and environmental policymaking.

Explaining collaboration between actors involved in policy processes is crucial for understanding these processes and their outcomes. The policy science literature has advanced several hypotheses explicating what enables or hinders collaboration. However, only a handful of studies compare these factors across different policy contexts. This paper investigates the role of beliefs and influence in shaping collaboration under conditions of high and low conflict by estimating Exponential Random Graph Models using network survey data on the climate policy domains in four countries. Results show that both beliefs and influence are associated with the formation of collaboration ties in the high conflict contexts of South Korea and the United States, whereas neither are significant in the low conflict contexts of Sweden and Switzerland. By considering the level of conflict, our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of when beliefs and influence shape collaboration patterns.

An energy efficiency scenario (Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future) demonstrates that an energy future built on the use of cost-effective, high-efficiency technologies is clearly within the grasp of South Korea and would justify a nuclear power moratorium with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions. This is a promising result, especially because applications of other sustainable energy options, such as renewables, decentralized technologies, material recycling/reuse, ecologically based land use planning, forest conservation, sustainable agriculture, and redirection of economic development toward an environment-friendly industrial base, are not included in the analysis. Here lies one of the most fundamental policy choices of the newcentury: Will we build a sustainable energy and environmental future, or will we send forward the burdens and risks of a policy regime that is unwilling to value the future beyond the satisfaction of short-term interests and convenience? It is a critical time for South Korean policy making.

Abstract
Collaboration between public administration organizations and various stakeholders is often prescribed as a potential solution to the current complex problems of governance, such as climate change. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, shared beliefs are one of the most important drivers of collaboration. However, studies investigating the role of beliefs in collaboration show mixed results. Some argue that similarity of general normative and empirical policy beliefs elicits collaboration, while others focus on beliefs concerning policy instruments. Proposing a new divisive beliefs hypothesis, we suggest that agreeing on those beliefs over which there is substantial disagreement in the policy subsystem is what matters for collaboration. Testing our hypotheses using policy network analysis and data on climate policy subsystems in 11 countries (Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Sweden, and Taiwan), we find belief similarity to be a stronger predictor of collaboration when the focus is divisive beliefs rather than normative and empirical policy beliefs or beliefs concerning policy instruments. This knowledge can be useful for managing collaborative governance networks because it helps to identify potential competing coalitions and to broker compromises between them.