Not excluding nuclear power: the dynamics and stability of nuclear power policy arrangements in Finland

Abstract

In this article, we aim at using the policy arrangement approach to explain the renewal of nuclear power policy in Finland from 1986 to 2010. From the point of view of national nuclear power decision making, we distinguish three different policy arrangement periods: (1) rejection (1986–1993), (2) revival (1994–2002) and (3) renewal (2003–2010). Within each period, the four dimensions which are, such as policy coalitions, ‘rules of the game’, policy discourses and resources are analysed. The three periods indicate that policy development has not been unilinear. In the rejection period, the ‘shock event’ of Chernobyl mixed up the policy arrangement. For example, the supporting coalition was temporarily paralysed, the political effectiveness of discourses changed and the anti-nuclear coalition found new resources. In the revival period, liberalisation and deregulation of electricity markets altered the formal rules of the game. A new energy policy of not excluding nuclear power was formulated, in which nuclear power was defined as a low-emission and technically or economically viable mode of production that could support environmental and climate objectives. The informal rules of the game also changed, as the supporting coalition re-styled its lobbying strategy. The latest period – renewal – is characterised by a strong supporting coalition aimed at further increasing nuclear power production capacity in Finland. This was most evident in the discourse aimed at the liberalisation of the licensing process. Despite changed policy arrangements, there is also continuity in the Finnish nuclear power policy, as the main formal rule of the game – the Nuclear Energy Act of 1987 – was largely left untouched. The supporting coalition seemed to survive the nadirs better than the challenging coalition, due to the proximity of interests held by the energy-intensive export industry, state and labour unions over the last two periods, and due to an asymmetry in the resources. It was revealed that climate change discourse strengthened during all the periods. The analysis also indicated the importance of the government programme, as it may or may not exclude nuclear power.