تضاد بین فرهنگ های مقرراتی ملی و مقررات انرژی اتحادیه اروپا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|16445||2011||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 13563 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Utilities Policy, Volume 19, Issue 4, December 2011, Pages 255–269
The research question is whether and to what extent the regulatory approach of command and control which is dominant in the energy sector accounts for implementation and enforcement deficits, and should be replaced or, at least, complemented by reform measures based on the public administration concept of collaborative governance. After a brief overview of the 2009 EU legislative package of energy regulations, three concepts of regulatory cultures are identified for Great Britain, France, and Germany which are based on the state paradigms of the enabling state (GB), the providing state (F), and the ensuring state (D). The main characteristics of the three national regulatory systems are outlined for the energy sector. Differences and conflicts between national regulatory cultures and EU energy regulations are identified, and linked to implementation and market deficiencies. Finally, alternative approaches to energy regulation are outlined on the basis of the concept of collaborative governance.
Fifteen years of EU command and control regulations1 aimed at liberalizing European energy markets have not resulted in truly competitive and integrated electricity and gas markets in Europe (European Commission, 2009b and European Commission, 2011). Incomplete implementation and enforcement of EU energy legislation by EU member states are held responsible for the shortcomings of the European liberalization efforts (European Commission, 2009b). The question is whether and to what extent the dominant regulatory approach of command and control regulations based on neoclassical economic theory is a major cause for implementation and enforcement deficits, and should be replaced or, at least, complemented by reform measures based on the public administration concept of collaborative governance2.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
“Smart” energy regulations of collaborative governance will probably not bring about market competition as prescribed in text books of energy economics. However, one can expect market results which will be achieved at lower regulatory costs than under existing command and control regulations. The existing British regulatory model and its cousins the EU concept of energy regulation and national regulations implementing this concept are on the wrong track toward market liberalization. They will end up in monstrous EU and national regulatory bureaucracies.