342 L. BOSCÁN ET AL.
meant an early attention to the energy costs of production (Henriques
and Sharp 2016). The long-run impacts of the cooperatives also extended
to government support of, e.g., adult education and societal engagement through the Folkehøjskole (non-degree granting adult education
colleges) system, where adults from all classes could spend time in a residential academic setting to improve their education (Kulich 1964). The
success of this system in Denmark, even when it has failed elsewhere,
and its connections to agricultural intensification made possible through
imported coal, show how the roots of energy sector success in Denmark
are deeply social and tied to self-driven community development.
Oteman et al. (2014) note that in Denmark’s decentralized system,
municipalities must realize national goals at a local level without much
guidance or budget. Simultaneously, municipalities have financial means
and independence in policy design, which is also coordinated at a national
level, mainly through the Ministry of Energy and Environment. Communities have ample room to innovate and design their projects, and the
local government is likely to support them on the grounds of revitalization of the community, revenue generation, and ensuring energy security
and independence.
This mirrors the flexicurity approach to labor and employment applied
to (energy) institutions themselves. That is, society provides a safety
net that reduces risks of entrepreneurship and innovation. It does also
increase the risk of simply a failure to act, based on the lack of dire need.
The success of such a model relies on the social cohesion and publicspiritedness of the group (Algan and Cahuc 2009). This is no less true
for energy policy than it is for labor markets, so that we can expect many
of the insights in describing how flexicurity is likely to succeed or fail in
other locations to also hold true for energy policy. That is, Continental
and Mediterranean European countries may lack key cohesive qualities
that facilitate adoption and success of energy policies similar to Denmark
(Algan and Cahuc 2009).
Denmark ranks highly in trust levels (Bjørnskov 2017), a factor identified as an important precursor to strong economic growth and well-being
(Bjørnskov 2017). The exact factors contributing to high trust levels
remain the subject of much research, but in general, wealth, transparent
and inclusive government, and income equality are relatively agreed
upon requirements whereas cultural considerations such as ethnic homogeneity are more uncertain contributors (You 2012). Policies that target
meant an early attention to the energy costs of production (Henriques
and Sharp 2016). The long-run impacts of the cooperatives also extended
to government support of, e.g., adult education and societal engagement through the Folkehøjskole (non-degree granting adult education
colleges) system, where adults from all classes could spend time in a residential academic setting to improve their education (Kulich 1964). The
success of this system in Denmark, even when it has failed elsewhere,
and its connections to agricultural intensification made possible through
imported coal, show how the roots of energy sector success in Denmark
are deeply social and tied to self-driven community development.
Oteman et al. (2014) note that in Denmark’s decentralized system,
municipalities must realize national goals at a local level without much
guidance or budget. Simultaneously, municipalities have financial means
and independence in policy design, which is also coordinated at a national
level, mainly through the Ministry of Energy and Environment. Communities have ample room to innovate and design their projects, and the
local government is likely to support them on the grounds of revitalization of the community, revenue generation, and ensuring energy security
and independence.
This mirrors the flexicurity approach to labor and employment applied
to (energy) institutions themselves. That is, society provides a safety
net that reduces risks of entrepreneurship and innovation. It does also
increase the risk of simply a failure to act, based on the lack of dire need.
The success of such a model relies on the social cohesion and publicspiritedness of the group (Algan and Cahuc 2009). This is no less true
for energy policy than it is for labor markets, so that we can expect many
of the insights in describing how flexicurity is likely to succeed or fail in
other locations to also hold true for energy policy. That is, Continental
and Mediterranean European countries may lack key cohesive qualities
that facilitate adoption and success of energy policies similar to Denmark
(Algan and Cahuc 2009).
Denmark ranks highly in trust levels (Bjørnskov 2017), a factor identified as an important precursor to strong economic growth and well-being
(Bjørnskov 2017). The exact factors contributing to high trust levels
remain the subject of much research, but in general, wealth, transparent
and inclusive government, and income equality are relatively agreed
upon requirements whereas cultural considerations such as ethnic homogeneity are more uncertain contributors (You 2012). Policies that target