The redundance of 経緯


The following is from [this](https://www.fukuishimbun.co.jp/articles/-/946344)
article.

> 関電は日本の原子力事業の旗振り役となってきた経緯があり、この問題がもたらす影響は計り知れない。

I am not sure what value となってきた経緯があり brings to this sentence. Is it simply a
more formal or poetic alternative to となり or となってきて?




> Is it simply a more formal or poetic alternative to となり or となってきて?

By the title, you are confused with combo of 「となってきた + 経緯」 and you feel the
explanation is redundant rather than it is a more formal or poetic alternative
to となり or となってきて , right?

If I adopt this, the explanation is below.

  * 「となってきた」here describes the moment of events actually has been going on.
  * 「経緯」here describes "a series of event" rather than what they are actually working on.

Let's say, buying some can of beverage from vending machine.

Putting money into the machine and choose one of the beverages, you will see
the moment the beverage and money actually are dropping out into the slot from
the machine. And, you might say something like
that「お金を入れると自販機から、缶とたくさんお釣りが出てきた。」

However, if the vending machine won't give anything by putting money into, you
might need to explain a series of events what you have done so far and where
you felt something wrong happened rather than saying the concrete moment you
were working on to fix the error. It's「お金と飲み物が自販機から出てこない経緯」.

So, 経緯 describes the reason and sequences of events rather than just
concatenating each moments.

> 関電は日本の原子力事業の旗振り役となってきた経緯があり、この問題がもたらす影響は計り知れない。

_Since Kanden has been a leading player of Nuclear Industry in Japan so far,
the impact that this issue would make is unmeasurable._




> Is it simply a more formal or poetic alternative to となり or となってきて?

By the title, you are confused with combo of 「となってきた + 経緯」 and you feel the
explanation is redundant rather than it is a more formal or poetic alternative
to となり or となってきて , right?

If I adopt this, the explanation is below.

  * 「となってきた」here describes the moment of events actually has been going on.
  * 「経緯」here describes "a series of event" rather than what they are actually working on.

Let's say, buying some can of beverage from vending machine.

Putting money into the machine and choose one of the beverages, you will see
the moment the beverage and money actually are dropping out into the slot from
the machine. And, you might say something like
that「お金を入れると自販機から、缶とたくさんお釣りが出てきた。」

However, if the vending machine won't give anything by putting money into, you
might need to explain a series of events what you have done so far and where
you felt something wrong happened rather than saying the concrete moment you
were working on to fix the error. It's「お金と飲み物が自販機から出てこない経緯」.

So, 経緯 describes the reason and sequences of events rather than just
concatenating each moments.

> 関電は日本の原子力事業の旗振り役となってきた経緯があり、この問題がもたらす影響は計り知れない。

_Since Kanden has been a leading player of Nuclear Industry in Japan so far,
the impact that this issue would make is unmeasurable._

