Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:29:29.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Choice Theory Applied to National Energy Policy: The Case of France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

David Lewis Feldman
David Lewis Feldman
Affiliation:
Political ScienceMoorhead State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public choice theory offers a conceptually important means of examining policy decisions and their social and economic consequences in the field of natural resources. Through a public choice analysis of France's ambitious program to nuclearize its electrical industry by the year 2000, I examine the origins, merits and deficiencies of French nuclear policy. Public choice theory's major assumptions – that a policy's costs and benefits are a function of resource abundance and level of development and that a resource's management is shaped by its character and availability – are largely valid. However, the need to reconcile competing social values and to distribute policy benefits fairly may be insufficiently accounted for by current public choice approaches, a fact exemplified by French experience with nuclear power.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 137 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

‘A Look At Nuclear Cooperation Between France and Iraq’. (1980) French Embassy Press and Information Division, publication number 80/91. New York, 1–2.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. W. (1979) ‘The Place of Principles in Policy Analysis’, American Political Science Review, 73. 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Anti-Nuclear Explosion’ (1981) Economist (London), 44.Google Scholar
‘Atomic Amour’ (1981) Economist (London), 50.Google Scholar
Barde, J. (1975) ‘An Examination of the Polluter Pays Principle’, in the Polluter Pays Principle: Definition, Analysis, Implementation. Paris: OECD, 93–117.Google Scholar
Barkenbus, J. N. (1984) ‘Nuclear Power and Government Structure: The Divergent Paths of the United States and France‘, Social Science Quarterly, 65, 37–47.Google Scholar
Brennis, W. (1966) Beyond Bureaucracy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bray, N. (1983) ‘France, Facing Power Glut, Scales Down Its Plans to Build More Nuclear Reactors’, Wall Street Journal, 22.Google Scholar
Braybrooke, D. and Lindblom, C. E. (1963) A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Carle, R. (1981) ‘Why France Went Nuclear’, Public Power, 85, 58–60, 82, 85.Google Scholar
Chafer, T. (1985) ‘Politics and the Perception of Risk: A Study of the Anti-Nuclear Movements in Britain and France’, West European Politics, 8, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1966) Theory of Knowledge. Englewood-ClifTs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Commercial Nuclear Power. (1984) Prospects for the U.S. and the World. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, 11.Google Scholar
Cook, E. (1982) ‘The Role of History in the Acceptance of Nuclear Power’, Social Science Quarterly, 63, 3–15Google Scholar
Coser, L.‘ Mitterand's First Two Years: An Advanced Welfare State in One Country?’ (1984) Dissent, 30, 165–169.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. (1981) ‘Limiting Democracy: Technocrats and the Liberal State’, Democracy, 61–79.Google Scholar
‘Don't Worry About A Thing’, (1908) Economist (London), 12 27, 41–42.Google Scholar
Dror, Y. (1968) Public Policymaking Re-examined. Scranton, PA: Chandler.Google Scholar
Eisner, R. (1983) ‘Which Way for France?’ Challenge, 07–08, 34–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Impact Assessment; Analysis of Environmental Consequences of Significant Public and Private Projects. (1979) Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
‘France Eyes Energy Exports’. French Embassy Press and Information Service. New York, 5.Google Scholar
Frears, J. R. (1981) France in the Giscard Presidency. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Held, V. (1975) ‘Justification: Legal and Political’, Ethics, 86, 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalleberg, A. L. and Preston, L. (1975) ‘Normative Political Analysis and the Problem of Justification: The Cognitive Status of Basic Political Norms’, Journal of Politics, 73, 650–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesselman, M. (1984) ‘The End of Jacobinism? The Socialist Regime and Decentralization’, pp. 84–103, in Krtizman, L. D., (ed), France Under Mitterrand, Contemporary French Civilization double issue VIII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Les Heures Francaises De L'Atome’, (1984) L'Express, 04 6, 59–60.Google Scholar
Lovins, A. (1979) Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. (1979) The End of Liberalism, 2nd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Marchand, Jerome, (1984) ‘Nucléaire: Le Gouffre Aux Déchets’, L'Express, 09 28, 65–66.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. and Pollak, M. (1980) ‘Political Parties and the Nuclear Energy Debate in France and Germany’, Comparative Politics, 12, 127–140.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. and Pollak, M. (1982) The Atom Besieged: Anti-Nuclear Movements in France and Germany. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nicolaon, G. A. (1983) ‘Energy Use and Planning in France’, French Embassy Press and Information Division, publication number 83/22. New York, 1–20.Google Scholar
‘Nuclear Energy in France’, (1980) French Embassy Press and Information Division, publication number 80/82. New York, 1–5.Google Scholar
O'dy, Sylvie. (1984) ‘Du plutonium dans le combustible’, L'Express, 11 23, 82.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. and Ostrom, E. (1971) ‘Public Choice: A Different Approach to the Study of Public Administration’, Public Administration Review, 31, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochlin, G. I. (1979) Plutonium, Power and Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Saglio, J. F. (1980) ‘How to Include Environmental Concerns in the Decision Making Process’, in Environmental Policies for the 1980's. Paris: OECD, 63–80.Google Scholar
Scheinman, L. (1965) Atomic Energy Policy in France under the Fourth Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, R. L. and Weinberg, L. B. (1977) Comparing Public Policies: United States, Soviet Union and Europe. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Siting Procedures for Major Energy Facilities: Some National Cases. (1980) Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. and Finegold, K. (1982) ‘State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal’, Political Science Quarterly, 97, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillers, C. (1985) ‘France Leads Breeder Research’, The Oak Ridger (Oak Ridge, Tennessee). 11 8; 1,9.Google Scholar
Sproule-Jones, M. (1982) ‘Public Choice Theory and Natural Resources: Methodological Explication and Critique’, American Political Science Review, 76, 790–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘State of the Environment,1985’. (1985) OECD Observer, No. 135, 12–26.Google Scholar
’State of the Environment in OECD Countries: A First Assessment’. (1979) OECD Observer, No. 98, 17–27.Google Scholar
State of the Environment in OECD Member Countries. (1979) Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Waterbury, J. (1979) Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
‘What Prospects for Nuclear Energy?’ (1982) OECD Observer, 116, 24–27.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. L. (1983) ‘French Interest Group Politics: Pluralist or Neo-Corporatist?’ American Political Science Review, 77, 895–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R. (1982) Resource Regimes: Natural Resources and Social Institutions. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar