Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research

Although IPE and GPP overlap conceptionally and empirically, there is a case for keeping GPP and IPE analytically distinct. To simplify: GPP tells us why we need international regimes for energy, while IPE tells us why we only have incomplete ones. Although many scholars draw on both sets of literat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andreas Goldthau, Nick Sitter
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2020-12-01
Series:Policy & Society
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1864100
id doaj-d25b2be4c2d648799298ae510cb55e17
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d25b2be4c2d648799298ae510cb55e172021-01-04T17:35:56ZengTaylor & Francis GroupPolicy & Society1449-40351839-33732020-12-010011710.1080/14494035.2020.18641001864100Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy researchAndreas Goldthau0Nick Sitter1Research Group Leader, Institute for Advanced Sustainability StudiesDepartment of Law and Governance, BI Norwegian Business SchoolAlthough IPE and GPP overlap conceptionally and empirically, there is a case for keeping GPP and IPE analytically distinct. To simplify: GPP tells us why we need international regimes for energy, while IPE tells us why we only have incomplete ones. Although many scholars draw on both sets of literatures, the two approaches to the study of energy market, regulation and politics entail asking different types of questions based on distinct theories and assumptions. The central propositions in this article are that i) in a rapidly changing world of energy scholars from both camps need to be aware of and open to insights from the other school; ii) that the distinction between market-focused liberal scholars on one hand and security-oriented or realist scholars on the other is increasingly important; and iii) that although IPE and GPP scholars can fruitfully accommodate insights from each others literature, the two approaches to the study of energy policy are best valued by their own analytical contribution – even as we grapple with new, cross-cutting issues such as the geopolitics and geo-economics of global energy transitions.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1864100global public policyinternational political economyenergy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andreas Goldthau
Nick Sitter
spellingShingle Andreas Goldthau
Nick Sitter
Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research
Policy & Society
global public policy
international political economy
energy
author_facet Andreas Goldthau
Nick Sitter
author_sort Andreas Goldthau
title Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research
title_short Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research
title_full Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research
title_fullStr Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research
title_full_unstemmed Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research
title_sort horses for courses. the roles of ipe and global public policy in global energy research
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Policy & Society
issn 1449-4035
1839-3373
publishDate 2020-12-01
description Although IPE and GPP overlap conceptionally and empirically, there is a case for keeping GPP and IPE analytically distinct. To simplify: GPP tells us why we need international regimes for energy, while IPE tells us why we only have incomplete ones. Although many scholars draw on both sets of literatures, the two approaches to the study of energy market, regulation and politics entail asking different types of questions based on distinct theories and assumptions. The central propositions in this article are that i) in a rapidly changing world of energy scholars from both camps need to be aware of and open to insights from the other school; ii) that the distinction between market-focused liberal scholars on one hand and security-oriented or realist scholars on the other is increasingly important; and iii) that although IPE and GPP scholars can fruitfully accommodate insights from each others literature, the two approaches to the study of energy policy are best valued by their own analytical contribution – even as we grapple with new, cross-cutting issues such as the geopolitics and geo-economics of global energy transitions.
topic global public policy
international political economy
energy
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1864100
work_keys_str_mv AT andreasgoldthau horsesforcoursestherolesofipeandglobalpublicpolicyinglobalenergyresearch
AT nicksitter horsesforcoursestherolesofipeandglobalpublicpolicyinglobalenergyresearch
_version_ 1724349149102473216