ABSTRACT
Expanding the field of energy research with more qualitative analyses, as was presented here, is desperately needed to better understand highly countryspecific governance structures and energy pathways in the developing world (Sovacool 2014, p. 25). Not only can practical implications, for development cooperation practitioners and policy-makers alike, be derived from this study about energy transitions in Southeast Asia. This work also contributes to theoretical debates, mainly in political science, and underlines the political dimension of an energy transition, which is often underestimated in the field of energy transitions research, dominated by economic perspectives and technocratic concepts. As this book combines a multi-level governance approach with power theory for the context of development cooperation, it contributes to the fields of governance frameworks for renewables, development thinking and multilevel governance. Contribution to the politics of renewables. The political dimension of renewable energy development goes beyond the mere existence of incentive structures or supportive legislation, which are often taken as important political indicators for the status of an energy transition (REN21 2015). To broaden this narrow perception, debates around governance frameworks for renewables can learn from long-known theoretical reflections about power in central-local relations (Goldsmith 1986; Laffin 2009; Rhodes 1980, 1986). Mapping these countryspecific formal and informal patterns of decision-making across jurisdictional levels sheds light on the key obstacles to renewables and potential ways to promote an energy transition. This also means that simply exporting positive supportive mechanisms from one country to another (Dietrich 2011; Hübner 2013) will not necessarily be successful, if it fails to address broader political conditions. Integrating power-related aspects such as the distribution of resources and capacities also allows the investigation and tracing of causal relations. Contribution to development thinking. This qualitative study confirms the results from numerous quantitative studies about the negative effects of
fragmentation in development cooperation (Annen and Moers 2012; Knack and Rahman 2007; McGillivray et al. 2006). Not only has the number of donors increased, but also their levels of intervention have diversified. Identifying power-related aspects that are specific to developing countries (such as corruption, lack of bureaucratic structures, regulatory uncertainties) as key obstacles to renewable energy development in both the Philippines and Indonesia confirms the demand for capacity development, institution-building and good governance (Sagar 2000; Santiso 2001; Weidner et al. 2010). This study also revealed negative side-effects of radical decentralization or market liberalization, which are fostered by development cooperation and reflect mainstream development paradigms, but cannot be taken as a blueprint for successful sustainable development. Donors have fostered free markets and participative governments, but achieved mixed results in terms of economic progress and – above all – human development (Rauch 2009). This is also the case in the field of renewable energy development, where issues of power and coordination are critical for success. Research about multi-level governance and power in central-local relations can thus make a valuable contribution to development theory. Contribution to multi-level governance. Studies investigating the role of governance and decentralized structures in environmental protection in Southeast Asian countries are rare (e.g. Ardiansyah and Jotzo 2014). This work contributes to this emerging field of research by using the concept of multi-level governance and enhancing its geographical scope. Linking the concept of multi-level governance to development assistance, this book also provides novel insights into a field where multi-level governance has been rarely used. This should help to better understand interactions across jurisdictional levels in complex governance arrangements (Neumann-Silkow 2010). Multi-level governance is often criticized for being an analytical framework that lacks strong theoretical reflections (Eckerberg and Joas 2004; Piattoni 2010). Incorporating aspects of power turned out to be beneficial for understanding relations, interactions and power-related aspects that go beyond the mere structure of the system. Insights from the Philippines and Indonesia also contest the mainstream perception among multi-level environmental governance scholars, who see a highly positive link between decentralization, local empowerment and sustainable development (Benz et al. 2009; Heinelt et al. 2002; Hirschl 2008; Peters and Pierre 2004). Decentralized political structures alone do not automatically enforce the development of mainly small-scale modern renewable energy technologies.
