IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v300y2022i2p755-770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-level optimization model of infrastructure-dependent technology adoption: Overcoming the chicken-and-egg problem

Author

Listed:
  • Brozynski, Max T.
  • Leibowicz, Benjamin D.

Abstract

Policymakers seeking to promote the diffusion of infrastructure-dependent technologies are often confronted with the “chicken-and-egg” problem: consumers are reluctant to adopt the technology without adequate infrastructure available, and firms are reluctant to invest in infrastructure without a sufficient number of adopters. This chicken-and-egg problem can hinder the diffusion of new technologies and prolong the timeframe over which existing technological systems remain locked-in. In this paper, we formulate a stylized model of technology policy decision-making from the perspective of a policymaker who seeks to stimulate the market penetration of an infrastructure-dependent technology. Our model is a multi-level optimization problem in which a policymaker (first level) maximizes net social benefits by setting the levels of two incentives: a subsidy for a profit-maximizing firm (in equilibrium with two other firms, the second level) to invest in infrastructure that raises the benefit of adoption to consumers, and a direct subsidy for consumers to adopt the technology (third level). Under certain assumptions about functional forms, we solve the full multi-level problem analytically through backward induction and derive closed-form expressions for the policymaker’s optimal subsidy levels. Then, we present a case study on policies to promote battery electric vehicle (BEV) diffusion. Our results reveal three main insights: (1) the optimal policy portfolio often subsidizes charging infrastructure more than BEV purchases, (2) infrastructure and adoption subsidies tend to be substitutes rather than complements, and (3) an increase in the marginal social benefit of BEV adoption shifts the optimal policy away from infrastructure subsidies and toward BEV subsidies.

Suggested Citation

  • Brozynski, Max T. & Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2022. "A multi-level optimization model of infrastructure-dependent technology adoption: Overcoming the chicken-and-egg problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(2), pages 755-770.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:300:y:2022:i:2:p:755-770
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721008754
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Chemama & Maxime C. Cohen & Ruben Lobel & Georgia Perakis, 2019. "Consumer Subsidies with a Strategic Supplier: Commitment vs. Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 681-713, February.
    2. John A. Norton & Frank M. Bass, 1987. "A Diffusion Theory Model of Adoption and Substitution for Successive Generations of High-Technology Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(9), pages 1069-1086, September.
    3. Neaimeh, Myriam & Salisbury, Shawn D. & Hill, Graeme A. & Blythe, Philip T. & Scoffield, Don R. & Francfort, James E., 2017. "Analysing the usage and evidencing the importance of fast chargers for the adoption of battery electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 474-486.
    4. Tavneet Suri, 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 159-209, January.
    5. Jiayi Joey Yu & Christopher S. Tang & Zuo-Jun Max Shen, 2018. "Improving Consumer Welfare and Manufacturer Profit via Government Subsidy Programs: Subsidizing Consumers or Manufacturers?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 752-766, October.
    6. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    7. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    8. Ji, Zhenya & Huang, Xueliang, 2018. "Plug-in electric vehicle charging infrastructure deployment of China towards 2020: Policies, methodologies, and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 710-727.
    9. Arthur van Benthem & Kenneth Gillingham & James Sweeney, 2008. "Learning-by-Doing and the Optimal Solar Policy in California," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 131-152.
    10. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    11. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    12. Unruh, Gregory C., 2000. "Understanding carbon lock-in," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 817-830, October.
    13. Encarnação, Sara & Santos, Fernando P. & Santos, Francisco C. & Blass, Vered & Pacheco, Jorge M. & Portugali, Juval, 2018. "Paths to the adoption of electric vehicles: An evolutionary game theoretical approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 24-33.
    14. Sierzchula, William & Bakker, Sjoerd & Maat, Kees & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 183-194.
    15. Brozynski, Max T. & Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2020. "Markov models of policy support for technology transitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(3), pages 1052-1069.
    16. Gnann, Till & Plötz, Patrick, 2015. "A review of combined models for market diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles and their refueling infrastructure," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 783-793.
    17. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    18. Nemet, Gregory F. & Kammen, Daniel M., 2007. "U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 746-755, January.
    19. Wolf, Angelika & Seebauer, Sebastian, 2014. "Technology adoption of electric bicycles: A survey among early adopters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 196-211.
    20. Yeh, Sonia, 2007. "An empirical analysis on the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: The case of natural gas vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5865-5875, November.
    21. Maxime C. Cohen & Ruben Lobel & Georgia Perakis, 2016. "The Impact of Demand Uncertainty on Consumer Subsidies for Green Technology Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1235-1258, May.
    22. Canan Ulu & James E. Smith, 2009. "Uncertainty, Information Acquisition, and Technology Adoption," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 740-752, June.
    23. Zhengrui Jiang & Dipak C. Jain, 2012. "A Generalized Norton-Bass Model for Multigeneration Diffusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(10), pages 1887-1897, October.
    24. Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2018. "Policy recommendations for a transition to sustainable mobility based on historical diffusion dynamics of transport systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 357-366.
    25. Saed Alizamir & Francis de Véricourt & Peng Sun, 2016. "Efficient Feed-In-Tariff Policies for Renewable Energy Technologies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 52-66, February.
    26. Shun-Chen Niu, 2006. "A Piecewise-Diffusion Model of New-Product Demands," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 678-695, August.
    27. Schroeder, Andreas & Traber, Thure, 2012. "The economics of fast charging infrastructure for electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 136-144.
    28. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    29. Bian, Junsong & Zhao, Xuan, 2020. "Tax or subsidy? An analysis of environmental policies in supply chains with retail competition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 901-914.
    30. Brian Arthur, W. & Ermoliev, Yu. M. & Kaniovski, Yu. M., 1987. "Path-dependent processes and the emergence of macro-structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 294-303, June.
    31. Higgins, Christopher D. & Mohamed, Moataz & Ferguson, Mark R., 2017. "Size matters: How vehicle body type affects consumer preferences for electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 182-201.
    32. James E. Smith & Canan Ulu, 2017. "Risk Aversion, Information Acquisition, and Technology Adoption," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1011-1028, August.
    33. Kornish, Laura J., 2006. "Technology choice and timing with positive network effects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(1), pages 268-282, August.
    34. James E. Smith & Canan Ulu, 2012. "Technology Adoption with Uncertain Future Costs and Quality," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(2), pages 262-274, April.
    35. Silvia, Chris & Krause, Rachel M., 2016. "Assessing the impact of policy interventions on the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles: An agent-based model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 105-118.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Rui & Meng, Qiang & Yu, Jiayi Joey, 2023. "Optimal government incentives to improve the new technology adoption: Subsidizing infrastructure investment or usage?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Corneliu Marinescu, 2022. "Progress in the Development and Implementation of Residential EV Charging Stations Based on Renewable Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, December.
    3. Nicolle, Adrien & Massol, Olivier, 2023. "Build more and regret less: Oversizing H2 and CCS pipeline systems under uncertainty," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brozynski, Max T. & Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2020. "Markov models of policy support for technology transitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(3), pages 1052-1069.
    2. Lingling Shi & Suresh P. Sethi & Metin Çakanyıldırım, 2022. "Promoting electric vehicles: Reducing charging inconvenience and price via station and consumer subsidies," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4333-4350, December.
    3. Duygu Akkaya & Kostas Bimpikis & Hau Lee, 2021. "Government Interventions to Promote Agricultural Innovation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 437-452, March.
    4. Brito, Thiago Luis Felipe & Islam, Towhidul & Stettler, Marc & Mouette, Dominique & Meade, Nigel & Moutinho dos Santos, Edmilson, 2019. "Transitions between technological generations of alternative fuel vehicles in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Srivastava, Abhishek & Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan & Chakraborty, Abhishek & Mateen, Arqum & Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan, 2022. "Design and selection of government policies for electric vehicles adoption: A global perspective," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    6. Mohammadreza Zolfagharian & Bob Walrave & A. Georges L. Romme & Rob Raven, 2020. "Toward the Dynamic Modeling of Transition Problems: The Case of Electric Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Martin Kalthaus & Jiatang Sun, 2021. "Determinants of Electric Vehicle Diffusion in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 473-510, November.
    8. Geels, Frank W. & Kemp, René, 2007. "Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 441-455.
    9. Moradi, Afsaneh & Vagnoni, Emidia, 2018. "A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 231-243.
    10. Palm, Alvar, 2022. "Innovation systems for technology diffusion: An analytical framework and two case studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Sorrell, Steve, 2015. "Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 74-82.
    12. Nilsson, Måns & Nykvist, Björn, 2016. "Governing the electric vehicle transition – Near term interventions to support a green energy economy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1360-1371.
    13. Jukka Luhas & Mirja Mikkilä & Ville Uusitalo & Lassi Linnanen, 2019. "Product Diversification in Sustainability Transition: The Forest-Based Bioeconomy in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Sorrell, Steve, 2018. "Explaining sociotechnical transitions: A critical realist perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1267-1282.
    15. Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2013. "Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 597-607.
    16. Jin, Wei & Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2014. "Explaining the Slow Pace of Energy Technological Innovation Why Market Conditions Matter?," Energy: Resources and Markets 165758, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    18. Paul Lehmann & Patrik Söderholm, 2018. "Can Technology-Specific Deployment Policies Be Cost-Effective? The Case of Renewable Energy Support Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 475-505, October.
    19. Geddes, Anna & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2020. "Integrating finance into the multi-level perspective: Technology niche-finance regime interactions and financial policy interventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    20. Sukanto Bhattacharya & Surjasama Lahiri & Munirul Nabin, 2021. "A novel technology adoption in an OLG framework: examining the cross-generational effects of promotional policies," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:300:y:2022:i:2:p:755-770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.