ABSTRACT

Although IPE and GPP overlap conceptionally and empirically, there is a case for keeping GPP and IPE analytically distinct. To simplify: GPP tells us why we need international regimes for energy, while IPE tells us why we only have incomplete ones. Although many scholars draw on both sets of literatures, the two approaches to the study of energy market, regulation and politics entail asking different types of questions based on distinct theories and assumptions. The central propositions in this article are that i) in a rapidly changing world of energy scholars from both camps need to be aware of and open to insights from the other school; ii) that the distinction between market-focused liberal scholars on one hand and security-oriented or realist scholars on the other is increasingly important; and iii) that although IPE and GPP scholars can fruitfully accommodate insights from each others literature, the two approaches to the study of energy policy are best valued by their own analytical contribution – even as we grapple with new, cross-cutting issues such as the geopolitics and geo-economics of global energy transitions.

摘要

尽管 IPE 和 GPP 在概念上和经验上是重叠的，但还是有必要在分析上保持 GPP 和 IPE 不同。简而言之：GPP 告诉我们为什么我们需要国际能源制度，而 IPE 告诉我们为什么我们只有不完整的制度。尽管许多学者借鉴了这两套文献，但这两种研究能源市场、监管和政治的方法需要基于不同的理论和假设提出不同类型的问题。本文的中心命题是：i) 在瞬息万变的世界中，两个阵营的能源学者都需要了解并接受另一派的见解；ii) 一方面以市场为中心的自由学者与另一方面以安全为导向或现实主义学者之间的区别越来越重要；