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.
- Wissenschaftliche Aufsätze
Goldthau, A., & Sitter, N. (2020). Horses for courses. The roles of IPE and Global Public Policy in global energy research. Policy and society, 1-17. doi:10.1080/14494035.2020.1864100.
- Beteiligte Mitarbeiter
- Beteiligte Projekte
- Die systemischen Auswirkungen der globalen Energiewende (ISIGET)