Fuelling expectations: a policy-promise lock-in of UK biofuel policy

Controversy over EU-wide biofuel policy resonated within the UK, fuelling policy disagreements among UK public authorities. They disagreed over how to protect a space for future second-generation biofuels, which were expected to overcome harm from first-generation biofuels. The UK government defended rising targets for available biofuels as a necessary stimulus for industry to help fulfil the UK’s EU obligations and eventually develop second-generation biofuels. By contrast, Parliamentary Select Committees opposed biofuel targets on grounds that these would instead lock-in first-generation biofuels, thus delaying or pre-empting second-generation biofuels. Those disagreements can be explained by different institutional responsibilities and reputational stakes towards ‘promise-requirement cycles’, whereby techno-optimistic promises generate future requirements for the actors involved. The UK government’s stance illustrates a ‘policy-promise lock-in’, a dilemma whereby promised support is a requirement for credibility towards technology innovators and thus technoscientific development – but may delay the redirection of support from incumbent to preferable emerging technologies. Thus the sociology of expectations – previously applied to technological expectations from technology innovators – can be extended to analyse public authorities

Arguments for a Co-production Approach to Community Flood Protection

With more intense rainfall and sea level rises predicted, an increasing number of people across the UK are vulnerable to flood events. The government has pledged more funding for flood infrastructure planning, design and management. However, schemes tend to focus on technical solutions, with the social impact, including needs and concerns of the local community, seen as secondary. Based on a detailed examination of three case studies in England, this paper identifies the mechanisms through which current processes restrict industry professionals from considering and incorporating the social perspective, often despite seemingly effective community engagement. The paper argues for an approach that incorporates social concerns alongside technical ones. Rather than ‘community engagement’, it is argued that ‘co-production’, in which lay communities work alongside technical experts in the design of flood risk alleviation schemes, would enable a final outcome that is both more socially acceptable and more technically successful