I meant generally for things like ways to allocate funding,not related to green energy.This specific instance i quoted from your article seems unreasonable for people with expertise on this topic.Or you imply that supporting energy transition is clouding people's judgement and they make decisions they would otherwise avoid?I don't know how government officials come up with ideas of what subsidies to provide and how to do so,I assume most of those aren't due to corruption/nepotism but for improving the life quality of their citizens. So what are usually the reasons in cases where these policies don't achieve their predicted outcomes.
I think the above article does actually answer your question regarding green energy policies.
More generally, that is a very difficult question. In many policy domains, it is quite similar to what I wrote about in the first article. You have a confluence of ideology, interest groups who want money, bureaucrats who make rules, experts who give advice, and voters who vote for candidates.
Perhaps this other article that I wrote helps to answer your question:
And to be clear, I never alleged "corruption/nepotism" in my article. And it is important to recognize that how best to "improve the life quality of their citizens" is heavily filtered by an ideological lens. Conservatives, liberals, and Leftists all have very different ideas on how to do this.
Any time the federal government has to spend money, the ultimate authority must come from Congress. They are the ones who appropriate the money. But federal bureaucrats have wide latitude as to how to implement the specific rules. And they can also change those rules significantly over the decades. They have particularly strong influence over regulations.
'The current subsidies encourage construction at sites with low levels of solar radiance and/or low wind speeds. This is particularly true when subsidies are combined with state-levell mandates. Most states do not have areas with high levels of solar radiance and/or high wind speeds, so the money is just a subsidy for no reason, though construction firms are happy to accept the money'
How are ideas like these end up getting implemented usually,is it ignorant people getting duped by few bad actors or just bad predicting accuracy
I meant generally for things like ways to allocate funding,not related to green energy.This specific instance i quoted from your article seems unreasonable for people with expertise on this topic.Or you imply that supporting energy transition is clouding people's judgement and they make decisions they would otherwise avoid?I don't know how government officials come up with ideas of what subsidies to provide and how to do so,I assume most of those aren't due to corruption/nepotism but for improving the life quality of their citizens. So what are usually the reasons in cases where these policies don't achieve their predicted outcomes.
I think the above article does actually answer your question regarding green energy policies.
More generally, that is a very difficult question. In many policy domains, it is quite similar to what I wrote about in the first article. You have a confluence of ideology, interest groups who want money, bureaucrats who make rules, experts who give advice, and voters who vote for candidates.
Perhaps this other article that I wrote helps to answer your question:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-do-governments-fail-so-often
And to be clear, I never alleged "corruption/nepotism" in my article. And it is important to recognize that how best to "improve the life quality of their citizens" is heavily filtered by an ideological lens. Conservatives, liberals, and Leftists all have very different ideas on how to do this.
Any time the federal government has to spend money, the ultimate authority must come from Congress. They are the ones who appropriate the money. But federal bureaucrats have wide latitude as to how to implement the specific rules. And they can also change those rules significantly over the decades. They have particularly strong influence over regulations.
I hope that helps to answer your question.
'The current subsidies encourage construction at sites with low levels of solar radiance and/or low wind speeds. This is particularly true when subsidies are combined with state-levell mandates. Most states do not have areas with high levels of solar radiance and/or high wind speeds, so the money is just a subsidy for no reason, though construction firms are happy to accept the money'
How are ideas like these end up getting implemented usually,is it ignorant people getting duped by few bad actors or just bad predicting accuracy
Thanks for the question. I happened to have just written an article on the topic:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-green-energy-policies-ate-the