Recent works have focused on optimal policy design, however far less attention has been devoted to understand the details of how policy mixes are successfully implemented. In particular, the contribution of the implementation structures and processes to the success or failure of policy mixes have not been properly taken into account.
The literature on renewable energy policy is paradigmatic on this regards. The policy mixes in this area have been largely studied, nevertheless the main focus has been on the comparative analysis of the substantive policy instruments (e.g. feed-in tariffs, subsidies, quota obligation, etc.) and of their interactions, whereas less attention has been devoted to policy implementation. Thus, important information on implementation structures and processes are poorly considered in policy design (usually in the literature they are referred as ‘non-economic barriers’ or ‘administrative barriers’). However, the research on local energy planning has underlined the importance of legitimacy, social acceptance and institutional capacity for the development of renewable technologies. In many cases, social opposition at local level or delays in authorization procedures have been significant hurdles for policy effectiveness, although the generous national supporting schemes for renewable. Underestimate the role of procedural policy instruments risks to weaken the lessons that could be learnt from cross-country research.
Taking the Italian renewable energy policy as an example, the paper calls for a more careful consideration of the implementation style in renewable energy policy design. At conceptual level, this paper explores the problem of ‘differentiate learning’ in policy mixes, i.e. the discrepancy between the learning processes and policy change at the level of substantive policy instrument and at the level of procedural policy instruments.
