Growing attention to sustainable development in academic discourse fosters discussions on how energy security affects society. In most cases the discussions consider the political and economic consequences, which affect or may affect the society. The aim of the article is to assess the impact of energy security economics on social cohesion in Lithuania. To achieve this aim the interrelations between energy security, energy economics and social cohesion are discussed. The theoretical framework of social cohesion (introduced by J. Jenson and P. Bernard) is presented and applied in empirical analysis. The operationalization of empirical variables is based on economic, political and socio-cultural - activity areas, which are analyzed to verify the dichotomies between public attitudes and the actual behavior of society. These dichotomies help to distinguish six analytical dimensions, on the basis of which we created 17 empirical indicators, which analysis allows for describing the impact of Lithuanian energy security economics on social cohesion in quantitative data. The statistical analyses showed that the impact of attitudinal dimensions of energy security economics on social cohesion in Lithuania has an almost neutral effect: 3.05 (1-very negative; 3-neutral, 5-very positive). Whereas, the impact of behavioural dimensions of energy security economics on social cohesion has a negative effect: 2.47. The aggregated average of the overall impact of energy security economics on social cohesion in Lithuania has a negative effect: 2.76.
The article consists of four parts. The first part presents the interrelations between energy security, economy and social cohesion as well as discusses the theoretical framework that is used in empirical analysis. The second briefly provides the operationalization of theoretical model, concrete indicators that are used in the analysis and presents main statistic characteristics of indicators. The third part explains the results and stresses main discoveries taking into account the distribution of energy expenses for energy security among society. The fourth elaborates the noticeable differences among different social groups (in regard to age, education, income and living area).
1. Ang, B. W., W. L. Choong, and T. S. Ng. “Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015): 1077–1093.
2. Ang, B. W., A. R. Mu, and P. Zhou. “Accounting framework for tracking energy efficiency trends.” Energy Economics 32 (2010): 1209–1219.
3. Bassi, Andrea M., Joel S. Yudken, and Matthias Ruth. “Climate policy impacts on the competitiveness of energy-intensive manufacturing sectors.” Energy Policy 37 (2009): 3052–3060.
4. Belke, Ansgar, Frauke Dobnik, and Christian Dreger. “Energy consumption and economic growth: New insights into the cointegration relationship.” Energy Economics 33 (2011): 782–789.
5. Berger-Schmitt, Regina. “Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: concept and measurement.” Social Indicators Research 58 (2002): 403–428.
6. Bernard, Paul. Social Cohesion: A Critique. Canadian Policy Research Networks, 1999.
7. Blum, Helcio, and Luiz F. L. Legey. “The Challenging Economics of Energy Security: Ensuring Energy Benefits in Support to Sustainable Development.” Energy Economics 34 (2012):1982–1989.
8. Cherp, Aleh, and Jessica Jewel. “The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (2011): 202–212.
9. DeCarolis, Joseph F., Kevin Hunter, and Sarat Sreepathi. “The case for repeatable analysis with energy economy optimization models.” Energy Economics 34 (2012): 1845–1853.
10. DeCarolis, Joseph F. “Using modeling to generate alternatives (MGA) to expand our thinking on energy futures.” Energy Economics 33 (2011): 145–152.
11. Dickes, Paul, Marie Valentova, and Monique Borsenberger. “Social Cohesion: Measurement Based on the EVS Micro Data.” Statistica Applicata 20 (2008): 77–91.
12. Duhaime, Gerard, Edmund Searles, Peter J. Usher, Heather Myers, and Pierre Frechette. “Social cohesion and living conditions in the Canadian artic: from theory to measurement.” Social Indicators Research 66 (2004): 295–317.
13. Feng, Taiwen, Linyan Sun, and Ying Zhang. “The relationship between energy consumption structure, economic structure and energy intensity in China.” Energy Policy 37 (2009): 5475–5483.
14. Gasparatos, Alexandros, and Tatiana Gadda. “Environmental support, energy security and economic growth in Japan.” Energy Policy 37 (2009): 4038–4048.
15. Jenson, Jane. Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc., 1998.
16. Kaygusuz, Kamil. “Energy for sustainable development: A case of developing countries”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012): 1116–1126.
17. Kruyt, Bert, D. P. van Vuuren, H. J. M. de Vries, H. Groenenberg. “Indicators for energy security.” Energy Policy 37 (2009): 2166–2181.
18. Leonavičius, Vylius, and Dainius Genys. “Daugiabučių namų renovacija: socialinis ir ekonominis aspektai” [Renovation of multi-apartment houses: social and economic aspects]. Filosofija. Sociologija 25 (2014): 98–108.
19. Lisauskaitė, Vaida. “Lietuvos gyventojų pajamų ir vartojimo diferenciacija” [Differentiation of income and consumption of the Lithuanian population]. Verslas: teorija ir praktika 11 (2010): 266–278.
21. Mulder, Machiel, Arie ten Cate, and Gijsbert Zwart. “The economics of promoting security of energy supply.” EIB Papers 12 (2007): 39–61.
22. National Energy Independence Strategy of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by Resolution No. XI-2133 of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 26 June 2012. Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius, 2012.
23. Strambo, Claudia, Mans Nilsson, and Andre Mansson. “Coherent or incosistent? Assesing energy security and climate policy interaction within European Union.” Energy Research and Social Science 8 (2015): 1–12.
24. Zabarauskaitė, Rasa, and Inga Blažienė. “Gyventojų pajamų nelygybė ekonominių ciklų kontekste” [Population income inequality in the context of economic cycles]. Verslas: teorija ir praktika 13 (2012): 107–115.
25. Winzer, Christian. “Conceptualizing energy security.” Energy Policy 46 (2012): 36–48.
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.119 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.113
researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.