UK climate change and energy policy under the Conservatives since 2010: Multiple-elitism or Neo-pluralism?

This study focuses on exploring the UK’s climate change and energy policies since 2010, under the Coalition and successive Conservative governments. As the concern over climate change has raised awareness of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the UK was among developed countries to focus on delivering affordable and clean energy, to reduce its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, the energy policies implemented dealt with emissions targets, security of supply and affordability. However, the policies since 2010 have been marked by continuity and change and involved key political actors including the government, environmental NGOs, local campaigners and businesses.

Whilst there has been discussion and concern about the UK’s climate change and energy policies in the academic literature since 2010, these studies lack theoretically driven consideration of the policy process, are typically limited to a single policy area and lack a comparative analysis across different energy domains. This study is different from the existing literature because it explores in detail four policy areas: climate change policy, fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewables. It applies two theories of policy process to explore the policy changes in these areas: multiple-elitism and neo-pluralism. The study also engages in a broad comparative study of the four areas to help investigate which theoretical approach can provide a better understanding of each case as well as shedding additional light on the policy areas themselves.

From the analysis of semi-structured interviews with elite participants and the policy documents, I develop four cases of energy policy set against the backdrop of recent developments in climate change policy. Individual and comparative analysis of these four cases reveals that continuity and change are a feature across each policy domain. However, the cases differed from one another to some extent. Greater continuity was found in nuclear power policies compared to those of climate change, fossil fuels and renewables. Meanwhile, climate change, renewables and fossil fuels experienced greater policy changes than nuclear power since 2010. Across the four cases, policy reforms emerged following battles between environmental NGOs, business groups and the government. Further, elections seemed to play a role in changing policy directions, which were aimed at attracting voters. Across the four policy areas, countervailing power associated with neo-pluralist theory emerged significantly to oppose special interests emphasised by multiple-elite theory. This countervailing power appeared in different forms: the emergence of social movements in climate change, fossil fuels and nuclear power, the communication between different actors on the issue of nuclear power, and a coalition between businesses and environmental NGOs in renewables. Natural gas, shale gas and nuclear power emerged as privileged technologies in the energy mix. These enjoyed government and business support, and key elite positions were found to advocate for these technologies despite some opposition. On the other hand, renewables were more informed by tough planning policies, and ministers were found to be important advocates against the technologies, notably onshore wind and solar photovoltaic. Overall, a combination of multiple-elitist and neo-pluralist features were found in the policies pertaining to climate change, fossil fuels and nuclear power, whereas policies linked to renewables were best described as neo-pluralist.