English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many policy issues are interdependent, while much policy making occurs in sector silos, involving sectoral networks each dominated by their own policy ideas and interests. Such parallel policy-making increases the risk of incoherent policy mixes across policy sectors. However, when new policy issues emerge that cut across existing sectors, opening a new policy field, it presents opportunities for a reconfiguration of actors in new networks. Such network reconfigurations could lead to more coherent policies for interdependent policy issues. This paper examines the Danish policy framework to promote biogas, focusing on the consistency of the policy mix with regards to sustainable development of biogas, and how reconfigurations of actor networks across policy sectors have affected the policy mix. We find that the policy mix is coherent, integrating policy objectives across sectors, and show that this owes in part to a policy community type network that evolved over time. The paper contributes to research on policy instrument mixes by showing how certain types of policy networks may contribute to developing consistent policy mixes. We also identify important coordinating roles of two new intermediary actors, including a government task force, suggesting that procedural policy instruments may contribute to developing consistent policy mixes.

Biogas at the intersection of agricultural, environment and energy governance: (potentially) conflicting interests and consistent policy framework?