The Contentious Politics of Disruptive Innovation:
Vaping and Fracking in the European Union
Jacob Adam Hasselbalch Thèse présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade académique de Docteur en Sciences Politiques et Sociales (ULB) et Doctor of Philosophy in Politics and International Studies (University of Warwick), sous la direction de M. le Professeur Jean-Frédéric Morin (ULB), codirecteur, et M. le Professeur André Broome (University of Warwick), codirecteur
Année académique 2016-2017
ii
Contents
Part 1: Innovation governance: the politics of disruption
1. Introduction: disruptive innovation as a problem for politics p. 1
2. How disruptive innovations become political problems p. 31
3. Innovation politics versus the politics of innovation p. 57
4. Framing disruption p. 87
Part 2: Vaping and fracking in the European Union
5. The importance of first impressions: marking disruptiveness p. 116 6. Expertise and the framing of risk: cognitive framing strategies p. 151 7. The deep structure of policy debates: normative and relational
framing strategies
p. 181
8. Discourse as network: frame usage over time p. 218
9. Conclusion: harmony and dissonance in the governance of disruption
p. 273
iii
Expanded table of contents
List of tables and figures ... vii
List of abbreviations ... viii
Acknowledgements ... xi
Declaration ... xiv
Summary ... xv
PART 1: INNOVATION GOVERNANCE: THE POLITICS OF DISRUPTION Chapter 1: Introduction: disruptive innovation as a problem for politics 1.1 Introduction ... 1
1.2 The Napster precedent ... 4
1.3 Theoretical and methodological approach ... 8
1.3.1 Case selection ... 11
1.3.2 Methods and data ... 18
1.4 Plan of the dissertation ... 21
1.5 Original contributions ... 27
Chapter 2: How disruptive innovations become political problems 2.1 Introduction ... 31
2.2 Defining disruption ... 32
2.3 Political and market consequences of disruptive innovation ... 39
2.3.1 The importance of controversy ... 40
2.3.2 How disruptive innovations challenge regulators ... 44
2.4 The Collingridge dilemma ... 49
2.4.1 Studying the Collingridge dilemma in practice ... 51
2.5 Conclusion ... 54
Chapter 3: Innovation politics versus the politics of innovation 3.1 Introduction ... 57
3.2 Innovation politics: policy as viewed from innovation studies ... 58
3.3 The politics of innovation: innovation as viewed from political science ... 65
iv
3.3.1 The myth of the powerless state ... 65
3.3.2 The myth of the powerless bureaucracy ... 69
3.3.3 Experts, expertise and legitimacy in regulation ... 72
3.3.4 Transnational settings and the European Union ... 79
3.4 Conclusion ... 84
Chapter 4: Framing disruption 4.1 Introduction ... 87
4.2 Making sense of Collingridge dilemmas ... 88
4.2.1 Collingridge dilemmas are not given – they are constructed ... 90
4.2.2 Collingridge dilemmas are not solved – they are negotiated ... 92
4.3 Framing theory ... 95
4.3.1 Framing in political science and sociology ... 97
4.3.2 The mechanistic versus ecological views on framing ... 101
4.4 The sociology of disruption: punctuated cooperation... 105
4.5 Conclusion ... 111
PART 2: VAPING AND FRACKING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Chapter 5: The importance of first impressions: marking disruptiveness 5.1 Introduction ... 116
5.2 First-mover advantages in framing ... 117
5.3 First impressions in the electronic cigarettes debate ... 122
5.3.1 Regulatory gaps and how to fill them... 123
5.3.2 Assessing the impact of the TPD... 127
5.3.3 The resilience of the pharmaceutical products frame ... 132
5.4 First impressions in the fracking debate ... 135
5.4.1 Gasland and the fracking controversy ... 136
5.4.2 Fracking encounters institutional complexity ... 140
5.4.3 First impressions and public sentiment ... 145
5.5 Conclusion ... 147
v
Chapter 6: Expertise and the framing of risk: cognitive framing strategies
6.1 Introduction ... 151
6.2 Disruptive innovation as risk ... 153
6.3 Cognitive framing strategies: precaution ... 160
6.3.1 The uncertainty of e-cigarette science ... 161
6.3.2 Fracking as a novel risk ... 165
6.4 Cognitive framing strategies: prevention ... 170
6.4.1 The certainty of e-cigarette science ... 170
6.4.2 Fracking as a well-known risk ... 174
6.5 Conclusion: the limits of expertise ... 179
Chapter 7: The deep structure of policy debates: normative and relational framing strategies 7.1 Introduction ... 181
7.2 Normative framing strategies: avoidance ... 182
7.2.1 E-cigarettes: abstinence ... 183
7.2.2 Fracking: avoiding fossil fuel lock-in ... 186
7.3 Normative framing strategies: acceptance ... 188
7.3.1 E-cigarettes: harm reduction ... 188
7.3.2 Fracking: gas as a bridge fuel ... 192
7.3.3 The limits of normative frames ... 196
7.4 Relational framing strategies: trust ... 197
7.4.1 Trust in the e-cigarette case ... 199
7.4.2 Trust in the fracking case ... 202
7.5 Relational framing strategies: mistrust ... 206
7.5.1 Mistrust in the e-cigarette case ... 206
7.5.2 Mistrust in the fracking case ... 210
7.5.3 Relational tensions in framing contests ... 213
7.6 Conclusion ... 215
Chapter 8: Discourse as network: frame usage over time 8.1 Introduction ... 218
8.2 Creating the discourse networks on e-cigarettes and fracking ... 222 8.2.1 Discourse as network: the affiliation networks of e-cigarettes and fracking . 228
vi
8.3 Analyzing frame usage over time ... 233
8.3.1 Stage 1: actor networks ... 235
8.3.2 Stage 1: concept networks ... 242
8.3.3 Stage 2: actor networks ... 247
8.3.4 Stage 2: concept networks ... 252
8.3.5 Stage 3: actor networks ... 257
8.3.6 Stage 3: concept networks ... 263
8.4 Conclusion ... 268
Chapter 9: Conclusion: harmony and dissonance in the governance of disruption 9.1 Introduction ... 273
9.2 Theoretical implications ... 274
9.3 Practical implications ... 280
9.4 Opportunities for future research ... 288
9.5 Contributions and conclusion ... 292
REFERENCES ... 297
Appendix 1: Interviewees in the e-cigarettes case ... 330
Appendix 2: Interviewees in the fracking case ... 331
Appendix 3: General interviewees ... 332
Appendix 4: Frames used in the e-cigarettes policy debate ... 332
Appendix 5: Frames used in the fracking policy debate ... 334
vii
List of tables and figures
Table 2-1. A typology of disruptive innovations p. 44
Table 2-2. The characteristics of disruptive innovation p. 47
Table 3-1. An overview of the innovation studies literature p. 60
Table 4-1. The mechanistic versus ecological logic p. 103
Table 4-2. Expectations and keys in the study of institutional change p. 111
Table 6-1. Framing strategies for coping with unknown risks p. 159
Figure 8-1. Networks of actors, affiliations and concepts p. 228
Figure 8-2a. The affiliation network of the e-cigarette policy debate p. 230 Figure 8-2b. The affiliation network of the fracking policy debate p. 231 Table 8-1. Overview of dates, article and statement numbers in each stage
of the policy debates
p. 235
Figure 8-3a. Stage 1 of the e-cigarette debate: actor congruence p. 238 Figure 8-3b. Stage 1 of the fracking debate: actor congruence p. 239 Figure 8-3c. Stage 1 of the e-cigarette debate: concept congruence p. 245 Figure 8-3d. Stage 1 of the fracking debate: concept congruence p. 246 Figure 8-4a. Stage 2 of the e-cigarette debate: actor congruence p. 248 Figure 8-4b. Stage 2 of the fracking debate: actor congruence p. 249 Figure 8-4c. Stage 2 of the e-cigarette debate: concept congruence p. 253 Figure 8-4d. Stage 2 of the fracking debate: concept congruence p. 254 Figure 8-5a. Stage 3 of the e-cigarette debate: actor congruence p. 258 Figure 8-5b. Stage 3 of the fracking debate: actor congruence p. 259 Figure 8-5c. Stage 3 of the e-cigarette debate: concept congruence p. 264 Figure 8-5d. Stage 3 of the fracking debate: concept congruence p. 265
viii
List of abbreviations
ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
ASH Action on Smoking and Health
CPE Comparative Political Economy
DNA Discourse Network Analyzer
DG Directorate General
EC European Commission
ECITA Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association
ECR European Conservatives and Reformists
EFA European Free Alliance
EFD Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy
EHN European Heart Network
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ENSP European Network for Smoking Prevention
ENVI The European Parliament’s Committee for Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety
EP European Parliament
EPHA European Public Health Alliance
EPP European People’s Party
ERS European Respiratory Society
EU European Union
EUL/NGL European United Left/Nordic Green Left
FCTC Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
FoEE Friends of the Earth Europe
FWE Food and Water Europe
GPSD General Product Safety Directive
GWP Global warming potential
HEAL Health and Environment Alliance
ix
HVHF High volume hydraulic fracturing
IEA International Energy Agency
IG Innovation governance
IOGP International Organization of Oil and Gas Producers
IR International Relations
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPE International Political Economy
ITRE The European Parliament’s Committee for Industry, Research and Energy
JRC European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MEP Member of the European Parliament
MDD Medical Devices Directive
MS European Union Member State(s)
NCP Nicotine-containing products
NGO Non-governmental organizations
NPM New Public Management
NRT Nicotine replacement therapies
P2P Peer-to-peer
PMI Philip Morris International
PPD Pharmaceutical Products Directive
R&D Research & Development
S&D Alliance of Socialists & Democrats
SCENIHR Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
SFP Smoke Free Partnership
SG The European Commission’s Secretariat General
SNA Social network analysis
STP Smokeless tobacco products
x
STS Science and Technology Studies
TA Technology assessment
TPD Tobacco Products Directive
TRA Technical risk analysis
TVECA Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association
TW Totally Wicked
UK United Kingdom
U.S. United States
WHO World Health Organization
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
