This was my presentation at the annual EAEPE conference in Manchester in November 2016. It presents the key argument that institutional constellations crucially shape the way that agents perceive and act upon new technological development and changing circumstances.

1. The Role of Institutions for
the Path Dependent Development of the Wind
Energy Industry in Germany and Britain
EAEPE Conference Manchester ‘16
Camilla M. Chlebna MSc
#12112222, Department of Planning
Supervisors:
Prof. James Simmie
Dr. Dave Valler
Artist’s impression, Hinkley Point C, Somerset, SW England, UK

2. • Introduction
• Theoretical Background
• Key Arguments
• Analysis framework
• Cases and Methodology
• Findings
• Conclusions
PRESENTATION STRUCTURE

3. • Focus on individuals and society beyond the firm
(Garud et al., 2007; Jackson, 2010; Bristow & Healy, 2014; Hassink et al., 2014)
• Industry/economy evolves in a path-dependent fashion but institutions
filter the way that agents perceive and act on technological
development and changing circumstances
• Necessity of co-evolution of formal institutional arrangements and
technology to enable technological development in path-dependent
systems
(Polanyi, 1957; Perez, 1983; North, 1996; Nelson, 1998; Strambach, 2010)
• Informal institutions shape individuals’ behaviour and thus whether
institutional co-evolution will occur
>> need explicit consideration (beyond notion of social capital)
KEY THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS

4. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
Incumbent
firms
Policy
makers
Civil society
agents
Incumbent
firms
Policy
makers
Civil society
agents
impact
impact
impactIndirect
power
Indirect
power
Power to
change
Ongoing dynamic of re(production)
pressure
pressure
???
???
???
???

5. CASES & METHODOLOGY
Main Fieldwork
36 semi-structured expert interviews in 2015
•4 pilot interviews with academics
•32 interviews in main fieldwork
•18 German, 18 British
•26 face to face, 10 phone
Used both as signposts and as immediate evidence
+ descriptive, secondary data drawn in to ‘thicken the plot’
Fieldwork Research Questions
Who tried to shape formal institutions over the years?
What motivated them?
Were they successful?
Why? Why not?
What are the interactions with and between institutions?
(Global Wind Energy Council, 2015)
Enercon, Vestas, Senvion, Nordex, GE WindEnercon, Vestas, Senvion, Nordex, GE Wind
Enercon, Siemens, Senvion, Nordex, VestasEnercon, Siemens, Senvion, Nordex, Vestas

6. FINDINGS
Key Informal Institution Reasons for prevalence of
informal institutions
Close association between ‘history’ and
‘anti-nuclear attitude’
>> Britain first country to use nuclear
power for civil purpose vs Germany
promised not to attempt to build
nuclear bomb after World War II
Close association of ‘anti-nuclear’ with
‘elitism’
“And this creates momentum. I know a lot of people, who,
with this attitude [against nuclear power] invested in wind
power, independent of whether they are going to become
rich or not.” (interviewee G15)
‘Anti-nuclear attitude’ was referred to
by 25 out of 36 interviewees and by
100% of German interviewees
“The anti-wind body became run by a chap […] who had
until recently been Thatcher’s press secretary. So all
the time we were issuing positive government statements
[…] - being positive about wind - he was briefing the
editors of the newspapers to be negative about it.”
(interviewee B8)(EVS, 2015)
(Childs, 2001; Taylor, 2016)

7. FINDINGS
Agents evaluate and may change
formal institutional arrangements
Agents in Germany appeared to be better
able to overcome restrictions and change
institutional arrangements where necessary
Development paths diverge
Institutional change more talked about
for Germany than for Britain
German support:
State & regional funding for large
scale projects and some small scale
Electricity Feed-In Law in 1990
Renewable Energy Law in 2002
British support:
National funding for large scale
projects
1% of Non Fossil Fuel Obligation from
1991
Renewables Obligation from 2000
„The most impactful individuals were the band of 4 from
parliament, the four parliamentarians Hermann Scheer
(SPD), Hans-Josef Fell (Green), Michele Hustedt
(Green), and Dietmar Schütz (SPD). […] These were
the ones that formed the backbone.” (interviewee G13)
Change vs hysteresis BRITAIN GERMANY
1 : Institutional Change 52.68% 47.32%
2 : Institutional hysteresis 89.63% 10.37%
(ISSP, 1986; ISSP, 1992; ISSP, 1999; ISSP, 2008)

8. FINDINGS
Institutional Co-evolution
because of strength of informal
institution in Germany
Anti-nuclear sentiment increasingly fed
into politics and government, eventually
support mechanism got developed in
1990 and updated in 2000
>> key reason for the development of
the industry
Agreements held beyond change of
parties in power
>> significant resources poured into
both technological research and
research on impact of conventional vs
renewable energy sources
Institutional Hysteresis because
informal institutions hinder co-
evolution in Britain
Government ideologically opposed to
supporting fledgling manufacturing
industry
>> lack of industrial strategy
Interest in short term profits over longer
term industrial development
“Margaret Thatcher had very little interest in Renewable
Energy. The focus of government at that time was moving
towards the financial services sector. […] Britain gave
very little industrial support money.” (interviewee B8)
(eurostat, 2016)
(Rave & Richter, 2008; Glaessner, 2005)
(Toke & Lauber, 2007)

9. >> Varied SME dominated industry in Germany vs
industry dominated by large, often foreign ruled
companies in Britain
CONCLUSIONS
Germany
Rejection of nuclear power influenced
behaviour across society leading to
institutional co-evolution
•Motivated inventors and (independent)
investors
•Drove citizens to put pressure on
policymakers
•Triggered politicians to implement
change (i.e. become institutional
entrepreneurs)
•Consumer pressure but also change
in management led to changes of
business strategies
•Shift of institutional constellation leads
to challenge of established power
structures in electricity industry
Britain
No comparable strength of sentiment,
instead elitism and neoliberal ideology
hindered institutional co-evolution
•Inventors/entrepreneurs focused on
profit or lacking independent funding
•Citizens at best ambiguous at worst
campaigning against wind energy
•No ‘champions’ for this industry
amongst policymakers
•Only lukewarm institutional support
therefore lack of new entrants to
challenge incumbents
•Electricity industry allowed to evolve in
a path-dependent way

10. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
Camilla M. Chlebna MSc
12112222@brookes.ac.uk
Please do not hesitate to contact me
with any suggestions or feedback
that you can offer.
International Student Initiative for Pluralism in
Economics: http://www.isipe.net/
Fieldwork supported by

11. Slide 1
Atomkraft Nein Danke!: Schoolmann S. http://www.nordland-virus.de/wordpress/?p=94. Hamburg, Germany.
Accessed on 23rd
February 2016.
Artist’s impression, Hinkley Point C, nuclear power station, Somerset, SW England, UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/01/hinkley-point-c-critics-try-to-derail-it-amid-brexit-vote-
turmoil#img-1
Slide 3
Bristow G and Healy A (2014) Regional Resilience: An Agency Perspective. Regional Studies. 48 (5), 923–
935.
Garud R, Hardy C and Maguire S (2007) Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency : An
Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies. 28 (7), 957–969.
Hassink R, Klaerding C and Marques P (2014) Advancing Evolutionary Economic Geography by Engaged
Pluralism. Regional Studies. 48 (7), 1295–1307.
Jackson G (2010) Actors and institutions. In: G. Morgan, J. L. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pederson, & R.
Whitley eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press. 63–86.
Nelson RR (1998) The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions. In: G.
Dosi, D. Teece, & J. Chytry eds. Technology, Organisation and Competitiveness - Perspectives on Industrial
and Corporate Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 319–335.
North DC (1996) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES I

12. Slide 3 continued
Perez C (1983) Structural Change and Assimilation of New Technologies in the Economic and Social
Systems. Futures. 15 (5), 357–375.
Polanyi K, Arensberg CM and Pearson HW eds. (1957) Trade and Market in the Early Empires - Economies
in History and Theory. Glencoe, IL, USA: The Free Press & The Falcon’s Wing Press.
Strambach S (2010) Path dependence and path plasticity: the co-evolution of institutions and innovation - the
German customized business software industry. In: R. Boschma & R. Martin eds. The Handbook of
Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 406–429.
Slide 5
Global Wind Energy Council (2015) Global Wind Report - Annual Market Update. Brussels, BEL
Slide 6
EVS (2015) European Values Study Longitudinal Data File 1981-2008 (EVS 1981-2008). ZA4804 Data file
Version 3.0.0. Available at: https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?
no=4804&db=e&doi=10.4232/1.12253.
Childs D (2001) Britain since 1945 (5th edition). London, UK: Routledge
Taylor S (2016) The Fall and Rise of Nuclear Power in Britain. Cambridge, UK: UIT Cambridge
Slide 7
ISSP Research Group (1986) International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government I - ISSP 1985,
ZA1490 Data file Version 1.0.0. Available at: http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?
object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fStudy/ZA1490.
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES II

13. Slide 7 continued
ISSP Research Group (1992) International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government II - ISSP 1990,
ZA1950 Data file Version 1.0.0. Available at: http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?
object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fStudy/ZA1950.
ISSP Research Group (1999) International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government III - ISSP 1996,
ZA2900 Data file Version 1.0.0. Available at: http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?
object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fStudy/ZA2900.
ISSP Research Group (2008) International Social Survey Programme: Role of Government IV - ISSP 2006,
ZA4700 Data file Version 1.0.0. Available at: http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp?
object=http://zacat.gesis.org/obj/fStudy/ZA4700.
Slide 8
eurostat (2016) Foreign ownership of domestic inventions in patent applications to the EPO by priority year.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/pat_ep_nfgn
Glaessner G-J (2005) German Democracy - From Post World War II to the present day. Oxford, UK: Berg
Rave K and Richter B (2008) Im Aufwind - Schleswig-Holsteins Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Windenergie.
Neumünster, GER: Wachholtz Verlag
Toke D and Lauber V (2007) Anglo-Saxon and German approaches to neoliberalism and environmental
policy: The case of financing renewable energy. Geoforum. 38 (4), 677–687.
Slide 10
Rethinking Economics Conference, London, 2015, author’s photo
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES III