許多學者研究發現，災變是許多爭議性高之政策變遷的催化劑，但除此之 外，災變究竟如何影響政策制訂方向還未被仔細檢驗，例如：不同國家之政策制 定者面對相同的災變，其政策回應到底是相同還是不同？本研究使用敘事政策分 析法（NPA)來比較多國在2011年福島核災後核能政策走向的相異，共有六國在 本研究中被分析：美國、法國、印度、瑞士、台灣與義大利，前三國在災後並沒 有顯著核能政策變遷，後三國則在災後經歷核能政策改變。
此研究發現，災變並不總像過去研究發現的必為政策帶來變遷，許多政策縱 使在經過災變後仍是停滯，政策學習也不一定是必然。

Many scholars argue that a crisis can serve as a catalyst to prompt a previously
controversial policy change. However, many of the effects of a crisis on policy changes
or policy intractability remain uninvestigated. Do policy-makers in different countries react similarly or differently to the same crisis? This paper uses a narrative policy analysis to conduct comparative case studies to examine how the 2011 Fukushima nuclear explosion affected nuclear energy policies in different polities. Six cases are selected: the United States, France, India, Switzerland, Taiwan and Italy. Whereas the first three countries listed do not exhibit nuclear policy changes in the post-crisis landscape, the latter three have experienced a policy reversal.
This research finds that crises do not always serve as a catalyst to induce policy changes as conventional wisdom predicts. Many policies exhibit its intractability even after a major crisis whereas policy learning is not automatic neither.