Econ Papers Daily / 期刊论文
相同干预，不同结果：加纳与肯尼亚能源转型规划的政治
Same intervention, different outcomes: The politics of energy transition planning in Ghana and Kenya
摘要
Under what conditions does externally supported energy transition planning produce locally owned and sustainable policy outcomes rather than short-lived plans, and what role do institutional gatekeeping, bureaucratic authority, and the sequencing of technical and political processes play in shaping those conditions? To unpack these questions, this paper comparatively analyses SEforALL's Energy Transition Investment Plan development in Ghana and Kenya, revealing striking divergences in processes and outcomes. Drawing on 22 semi-structured interviews and the theories of policy translation and political settlements, the analysis demonstrates that Ghana's experience was characterised by institutional bypass, limited domestic agency, and a significant reduction in the plan's operational priority following electoral change. Kenya's trajectory, conversely, featured institutional resistance that compelled collaborative engagement, resulting in sustainable policy embedding. The findings reveal that successful policy translation depends not merely on technical capacity but on power configuration, bureaucratic authority, and political settlements. This research advances understanding of energy transition politics whilst offering practical insights for international organisations and governments navigating the complex politics of translating global climate imperatives into national policies in developing countries.
中文摘要
在何种条件下，外部支持的能源转型规划能够产生地方自主且可持续的政策成果，而非短命的规划？制度守门、官僚权威以及技术与政治过程的先后顺序在塑造这些条件中发挥什么作用？为解析这些问题，本文比较分析了“人人享有可持续能源”（SEforALL）在加纳和肯尼亚的能源转型投资计划制定过程，揭示了过程与结果上的显著差异。基于22次半结构化访谈以及政策转译和政治 Settlements 理论，分析表明，加纳的经验以制度绕行、有限的国内能动性以及选举更替后该计划在操作优先级上的显著下降为特征。肯尼亚的轨迹则相反，其特点是制度性抵制迫使协作性参与，从而实现了可持续的政策嵌入。研究发现表明，成功的政策转译不仅取决于技术能力，还取决于权力配置、官僚权威和政治 Settlements。本研究推进了对能源转型政治的理解，同时为国际组织和政府在发展中国家将全球气候紧迫要求转化为国家政策这一复杂政治过程中提供实践启示。