Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 391–413 | Cite as

Does Foreign Environmental Policy Influence Domestic Innovation? Evidence from the Wind Industry

  • Antoine Dechezleprêtre
  • Matthieu Glachant
Article

Abstract

This paper analyses the relative influence of domestic and foreign demand-pull policies in wind power across OECD countries on the rate of innovation in this technology. We use annual wind power generation to capture the stringency of the portfolio of demand-pull policies in place (e.g., guaranteed tariffs, investment and production tax credits), and patent data as an indicator of innovation activity. We find that wind technology improvements respond positively to policies both home and abroad, but the marginal effect of domestic policies is 12 times greater. The influence of foreign polices is reduced by barriers to technology diffusion, in particular lax intellectual property rights. Reducing such barriers therefore constitutes a powerful policy leverage for boosting environmental innovation globally.

Keywords

Innovation International technology diffusion Renewable energy policy Wind power 

Jel Classification

O31 Q42 Q55 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank David Popp and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also thank many conference and seminar participants in Toulouse, Paris, Prague, Mannheim, and London. Financial support by the French Council for Energy (CFE) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Aghion P, Dechezleprêtre A, Hemous D, Martin R, Van Reenen J (2012) Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. NBER working paper 18596, National Bureau of Economic Research, IncGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison PD, Waterman RP (2002) Fixed-effects negative binomial regression models. Sociol Methodol 32:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunnermeier SB, Cohen MA (2003) Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. J Environ Econ Manag 45:278–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan B, Keefe P (2010) Environmentally sound technology (EST): an analysis of the classification of EST energy sectors in the IPC; and of UK EST innovation through the IPC. Paper presented at the patent statistics for decision makers conference, 17–18 November 2010, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  5. COMTRADE (2012) United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. Available at http://comtrade.un.org/db/ (last accessed 1 July 2013)
  6. Crabb J, Johnson D (2010) Fueling innovation: the impact of oil prices and CAFE standards on energy-efficient automotive technology. Energy J 31(1):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Ménière Y (2013) What drives the international transfer of climate change mitigation technologies? Empirical evidence from patent data. Environ Resour Econ 54(2):161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Johnstone N, Haščič I, Ménière Y (2011) Invention and transfer of climate change mitigation technologies: a global analysis. Rev Environ Econ Policy 5(1):109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dekker T, Vollebergh HRJ, De Vries FP, Withagen C (2009) Inciting protocols. J Env Econ Manag 64(1):45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eaton J, Kortum S (1996) Trade in ideas: patenting and productivity in the OECD. J Int Econ 40(3–4):251–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eaton J, Kortum S (1999) International technology diffusion: theory and measurement. Int Econ Rev 40(3):537–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ECOOM-EUROSTAT-EPO PATSTAT Person Augmented Table (EEE-PPAT) database (2012). http://www.ecoom.be/nl/eee-ppat. Last accessed 1 July 2013
  13. Greene W (2004a) Fixed effects and bias due to the incidental parameters problem in the tobit model. Econom Rev 23(2):125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene W (2004b) The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects. Econom J 7(1):98–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene W (2007) Fixed and random effects models for count data. Working paper Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J Econ Lit 28(4):1661–1707Google Scholar
  17. Hall BH, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. Rand J Econ 36:16–38Google Scholar
  18. Hausman J, Hall BH, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with application to the patents-R &D relationship. Econometrica 52:909–938Google Scholar
  19. Helfgott S (1993) Patent filing costs around the world. J Pat Trademark Off Soc 75:567–580Google Scholar
  20. Hendry C, Harborne P (2011) Changing the view of wind power development: more than bricolage. Res Policy 40(5):778–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IEA (2003) Renewables for power generation. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. IEA (2005) Projected costs of electricity generation. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. IEA (2009) Wind technology roadmap. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. IMF (2012) Annual report on exchange arrangements and exchange restrictions. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaffe AB, Palmer K (1997) Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Stat 79(4):610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnstone N, Haščič I, Popp P (2010) Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environ Resour Econ 45(1):133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller W (2004) International technology diffusion. J Econ Lit 42(3):752–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanjouw JO, Mody A (1996) Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Res Policy 25:549–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lanjouw J, Pakes A, Putnam J (1998) How to count patents and value intellectual property: uses of patent renewal and application data. J Ind Econ 46(4):405–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nemet G (2009) Demand-pull technology-push and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Res Policy 38(5):700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neuhoff K (2005) Large-scale deployment of renewables for electricity generation. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 21(1):88–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Q J Econ 114:941–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD (2009) OECD patent statistics manual. ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. Park WG, Lippoldt DC (2008) Technology transfer and the economic implications of the strengthening of intellectual property rights in developing countries. OECD Trade Policy working papers 62, OECD Trade Directorate, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. PATSTAT (2012) Worldwide patent statistical database. European Patent Office. October 2012Google Scholar
  36. Peri G (2005) Determinants of knowledge flows and their effect on innovation. Rev Econ Stat 87(2):308–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peters M, Schneider M, Griesshaber T, Hoffmann VH (2012) The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change: does the locus of policies matter? Res Policy 41(8):1296–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. Am Econ Rev 92(1):160–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Popp D (2006) International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US Japan and Germany. J Environ Econ Manag 51:46–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Popp D, Hafner T, Johnstone N (2011) Policy vs. consumer pressure: innovation and diffusion of alternative bleaching technologies in the pulp industry. Res Policy 40(9):1253–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schlenker W, Walker WR (2011) Airports, air pollution, and contemporaneous health. NBER Working Papers 17684, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Verdolini E, Galeotti M (2011) At home and abroad: an empirical analysis of innovation and diffusion in energy technologies. J Env Econ Manag 61:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. WIPO (2010) World Intellectual Property Indicators 2010Google Scholar
  44. Wooldridge (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the EnvironmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.CERNA, MINES ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations