Combining insights from interpretive policy analysis, collaborative planning theory, and science and technology studies, I consider the role and influence of the public planning inquiry on policy learning and change. Drawing on the case of UK nuclear energy policy, and the construction of the first generation of civil nuclear power stations, I focus on the seven inquiries held in response to the 1955 Nuclear White Paper. Following an analysis of archival records, inspectors' reports and interview data, I examine how this setting facilitated instrumental policy learning and why it failed to stimulate social policy learning. The concept of boundary-work, and its role in preserving the intellectual authority and professional autonomy of the nuclear industry during the inquiries, is explored in detail. I conclude by considering the contemporary significance of these findings in light of the current ‘nuclear renaissance’ and concurrent streamlining of the UK planning process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgyrisC, 1994, “Good communication that blocks learning”Harvard Business Review727785
2.
ArgyrisCSchönDA, 1978Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA)
3.
ArnoldL, 2007Windscale 1957: Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
4.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD, 1991, “Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems”The Journal of Politics5310441074
5.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD, 1993Agendas and Instability in American Politics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
6.
BrysonJMCrosbyBC, 1993, “Policy planning and the design and use of forums, arenas, and courts”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20175194
7.
CampbellHMarshallR, 2000, “Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond the one to the many”International Planning Studies15321344
8.
ClarkG, 2010, Written Ministerial Statement, Communities and Local Government, Planning Reform, Hansard 29 June Column 33WS
9.
CollinsHMEvansR, 2002, “The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience”Social Studies of Science32235296
10.
CowellROwensS, 2006, “Governing space: Planning reform and the politics of sustainability”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24403421
11.
DeutschKW, 1966, The Nerves of Government: Modes of Political Communication and Control (Collier-Macmillan, London)
12.
DrapkinDB, 1974, “Development, electricity and power stations: Problems in electricity planning and decisions”Public Law Autumn, 220253
13.
DudleyGFRichardsonJJ, 1996a, “Arenas as agents of policy change: New institutionalism and the public inquiry process in UK trunk roads policy” Essex Papers in Politics and Government 104, Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester
14.
DudleyGRichardsonJ, 1996b, “Why does policy change over time? Adversarial communities, alternative policy arenas and British trunk roads policy 1945–95”Journal of European Public Policy316383
15.
DudleyGRichardsonJ, 1998, “Arenas without rules and the policy change process: Outsider groups and British roads policy”Political Studies48727747
16.
Electricity Act, 1947Public General Acts-George VI Chapter 54 (HMSO, London)
17.
Electricity Act, 1957Public General Acts-Elizabeth II Chapter 48 (HMSO, London)
18.
Electric Lighting Act, 1909Public General Acts-Edward VII Chapter 34 (HMSO, London)
19.
FiorinoDJ, 2001, “Environmental policy as learning: New view of an old landscape”Public Administration Review61322334
20.
FischerF, 2003Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
21.
FlyvbjergB, 1998, Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
FranksO, 1957Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries Cmnd 218 (HMSO, London)
24.
GierynTF, 1983, “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”American Sociological Review48781795
25.
GierynTF, 1995, “Boundaries of Science” in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies Eds JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) pp 393443
26.
GlasbergenP, 1996, “Learning to manage the environment”, in Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects Eds LaffertyWMMeadowcroftJ (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 175193
27.
Grove-WhiteR, 1991, “Land use law and the environment”, in Law, Policy and the Environment Eds ChurchillRGibsonJWarrenLM (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 3247
28.
HajerM, 2005, “Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation”Administration and Society36624647
29.
HajerMAWagenaarH, 2003Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
30.
HallPA, 1993, “Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state”Comparative Politics25275296
31.
HallPTaylorR, 1996, “Political science and the three institutionalisms”Political Studies64936957
32.
Hansard, 1957a, “Nuclear power and oil supplies”, House of Commons Debate, 30 April, volume 569, cc 33159
33.
Hansard, 1957b, “Administrative tribunals”, House of Lords Debate, 27 November, volume 206, cc522–92
34.
Hansard, 1957c, “Atomic power stations (siting)”, House of Commons Debate, 19 December, volume 580, cc 66783
InnesJ, 2004, “Consensus building: Clarification for the critics”Planning Theory3520
40.
JamesA, 2006, “Critical moments in the production of ‘rigorous’ and ‘relevant’ cultural economic geographies”Progress in Human Geography30120
41.
JasanoffS, 1995Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
42.
JasanoffS, 2005Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
43.
KempR, 1985, “Planning, public hearings, and the politics of discourse”, in Critical Theory and Public Life Ed. ForesterJ (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 177201
44.
KingdonJW, 2003Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Longman, New York)
45.
LindblomCE, 1959, “The science of ‘muddling through’”Public Administration Review297988
46.
LovellHBulkeleyHOwensS, 2009, “Converging agendas? Energy and climate change policies in the UK”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2790109
47.
McAuslanP, 1979, “The ideologies of planning law”Urban Law and Policy2123
48.
MacdonaldS, 1996, “Authorising science: Public understanding of science in museums”, in Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology Eds IrwinAWynneB (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 152171
49.
MarchJGOlsenJP, 1984, “The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life”The American Political Science Review78734749
50.
MartinRLSunleyP, 2001, “Rethinking the ‘economic’ in economic geography: Broadening our vision or losing our focus?”Antipode3314861
51.
MayPJ, 1992, “Policy learning and failure”Journal of Public Policy12331354
52.
MFP, Ministry of Fuel and Power, London 1955A Programme of Nuclear Power Cmd 9389 (HMSO, London)
53.
MFP, Ministry of Fuel and Power, London1956Report of the Public Inquiry into the Planning Application by the Central Electricity Authority to Build a Nuclear Power Station at Bradwell, Essex
54.
Ministry of Power, 1958Report of Public Inquiry concerning proposals to construct a Nuclear Power Station at Trawsfynydd together with certain Overhead Transmission Lines (HMSO, London)
55.
MytelkaLKSmithK, 2002, “Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process”Research Policy3114671479
56.
NilssonM, 2005, “Learning, frames, and environmental policy integration: The case of Swedish energy policy”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23207226
57.
NilssonM, 2006, “The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: A study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation”Policy Sciences38225249
58.
O'NeillO, 2002A Question of Trust (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
59.
OpenshawS, 1986Nuclear Power: Siting and Safety (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London)
60.
O'RiordanT, 1988, “The prodigal technology: Nuclear power and political controversy”The Political Quarterly59161177
61.
OstromE, 1999, “Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework”, in Theories of Public Policy Ed. SabatierPA (Westview Press, Oxford) pp 3571
62.
OwensS, 2002, “A collision of adverse opinions? Major projects, planning inquiries, and policy change”Environment and Planning A34949953
63.
OwensSCowellR, 2002Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process (Routledge, London)
64.
OwensSRaynerT, 1999, “‘When knowledge matters’: The role and influence of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning1724
65.
Planning Act, 2008Public General Acts-Elizabeth II Chapter 29 (The Stationery Office, London)
66.
PralleSB, 2003, “Venue shopping, political strategy and policy change: The internalisation of Canadian forest advocacy”Journal of Public Policy23233260
67.
RadaelliCM, 1995, “The role of knowledge in the policy process”Journal of European Public Policy2159183
68.
RadaelliCM, 2000, “Symposium: Theories of the policy process. Public policy comes of age”Journal of European Public Policy7130135
69.
RoseR, 1991, “What is lesson-drawing?”Journal of Public Policy11330
70.
SabatierP, 1987, “Knowledge, policy-orientated learning, and policy change: An advocacy coalition framework”Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization8649692
71.
SabatierPA, 1999Theories of Public Policy (Westview Press, Boulder, CO)
72.
SawardM, 1992, “The civil nuclear network in Britain”, in Policy Networks in British Governance Eds MarshDRhodesRAW (Clarendon Press, Oxford) pp 7599
73.
SheailJ, 1991Power in Trust: The Environmental History of the Central Electricity Generating Board (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
74.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP, 1998, “Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning”Environment and Planning A3019751989
75.
The Observer1959, “Nuclear power”, 19 July, page 8
76.
The Times1958, “Nuclear site opposition ‘irresponsible’”, 17 December, page 5
77.
The Times1960, “Nuclear station opposed: Site particularly advantageous”, 13 April, page 4
78.
Town and Country Planning Act, 1947Public General Acts-George VI Chapter 51 (HMSO, London)
79.
Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958Public General Acts-Elizabeth II Chapter 66 (HMSO, London)
80.
van der KnaapP, 1995, “Policy evaluation and learning: Feedback, enlightenment or argumentation?”Evaluation1189216
81.
WelshI, 1993, “The NIMBY syndrome: Its significance in the history of the nuclear debate in Britain”The Journal of the British Society for the History of Science261532
82.
WelshI, 2000Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment (Routledge, London)
83.
WilliamsR, 1980The Nuclear Power Decisions (Croom Helm, London)
84.
WraithRELambGB, 1971Public Inquiries as an Instrument of Government (Allen and Unwin, London)
85.
WynneB, 1982Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Enquiry and Nuclear Decision in BritainBritish Society for the History of Science, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks
86.
Unpublished material
87.
AtkinsonEC, 1957, Memo compiled by E C Atkinson, 2 January, The National Archives, Kew, AB 38/8
88.
BowlesP, 1956, Memo written by Mr P Bowles of UK AEA Harwell, Engineering Division, 14 May, The National Archives, Kew, AB 16/2227
89.
CampbellAC, 1956, A brief for the Minister's meeting with Mr Driberg's Deputation about Bradwell, 24 February, The National Archives, Kew, POWE 14/871
90.
ElliottWA, 1957, Note by counsel for United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, signed by W A Elliott, 15 January, The National Archives, Kew, AB 44/88
91.
HarrisonB, 1956, Letter from Brian Harrison to Duncan Sandys, 5 January, The National Archives, Kew, HLG 51/1151
92.
HightonCJ, 1957, Letter from C J Highton to Sir Andrew Innes, The Lord Advocate's Department, 7 January, The National Archives, Kew, AB 44/88
93.
HunterE, undated, Representation by Miss Eleonora Hunter of Hunterston, The National Archives, Kew, AB 44/88
94.
MurrayMP, 1956a, Memo written by Mr M P Murray, an undersecretary at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, 5 March, The National Archives, Kew, POWE 14/871
95.
MurrayMP, 1956b, Letter written by Mr M P Murray to Mr Jarratt in response to Mr Driberg's Deputation about Bradwell, 28 February, The National Archives, Kew, POWE 14/871
96.
PlowdenDEH, 1957, Production of Documents at the Hunterston Inquiry, letter to the Lord President from Edwin Plowden, 1 February, The National Archives, Kew, AB 16/1711
97.
UnderwoodER, 1956a, “The Bradwell Inquiry II”, Observations by Mr Eric R Underwood, Public Relations Branch UK AEA, 11 May, The National Archives, Kew, AB 16/2227
98.
UnderwoodER, 1956b, “The Bradwell Inquiry”, Observations by Mr Eric R Underwood, Public Relations Branch UK AEA, 9 May, The National Archives, Kew, AB 16/2227
