IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ccexxx/v07y2016i04ns2010007816500135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic Conflicts On The Horizon: R&D Incentives For Environmental Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • DANIEL HEYEN

    (Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics)

Abstract

Technological innovation is a key strategy for tackling climate change and other environmental problems. The required R&D expenditures however are substantial and fall on self-interested countries. Thus, the prospects of successful innovation critically depend on innovation incentives. This paper focuses on a specific mechanism for strategic distortions in this R&D game. In this mechanism, the outlook of future conflicts surrounding technology deployment directly impacts on the willingness to undertake R&D. Apart from free-riding, a different deployment conflict with distortive effects on innovation can occur. Low deployment costs and heterogeneous preferences might give rise to ‘free-driving’ (Weitzman, ML (2015). A voting architecture for the governance of free-driver externalities, with application to geoengineering. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1049–1068): The country with the highest preference for technology deployment, the free driver, may dominate the deployment outcome to the detriment of others. The present paper develops a simple two stage model for analyzing how technology deployment conflicts, free-riding and free-driving, shape R&D incentives of two asymmetric countries. The framework gives rise to rich findings, underpinning the narrative that future deployment conflicts extend to the R&D stage. While the outlook of free-riding unambiguously weakens innovation incentives, the findings for free-driving are more complex, including the possibility of excessive R&D as well as incentives for counter-R&D.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Heyen, 2016. "Strategic Conflicts On The Horizon: R&D Incentives For Environmental Technologies," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 1-27, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ccexxx:v:07:y:2016:i:04:n:s2010007816500135
    DOI: 10.1142/S2010007816500135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007816500135
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S2010007816500135?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. Valentina Bosetti & Carlo Carraro & Romain Duval & Alessandra Sgobbi & Massimo Tavoni, 2009. "The Role of R&D and Technology Diffusion in Climate Change Mitigation: New Perspectives Using the WITCH Model," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 664, OECD Publishing.
    2. Effrosyni Diamantoudi & Eftichios S. Sartzetakis, 2006. "Stable International Environmental Agreements: An Analytical Approach," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 8(2), pages 247-263, May.
    3. Poyago-Theotoky, J.A., 2007. "The organization of R&D and environmental policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 63-75, January.
    4. Michael Hoel & Aart Zeeuw, 2010. "Can a Focus on Breakthrough Technologies Improve the Performance of International Environmental Agreements?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 395-406, November.
    5. Timo Goeschl & Daniel Heyen & Juan Moreno-Cruz, 2013. "The Intergenerational Transfer of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 85-104, September.
    6. Cozzi, Guido, 1999. "R&D Cooperation and Growth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 17-49, May.
    7. Bard Harstad, 2012. "Climate Contracts: A Game of Emissions, Investments, Negotiations, and Renegotiations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(4), pages 1527-1557.
    8. Barrett, Scott, 1994. "Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 878-894, Supplemen.
    9. Maia David & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2005. "Environmental Regulation and the Eco-Industry," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 141-155, September.
    10. James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1983. "Strategic Commitment with R&D: The Symmetric Case," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(1), pages 225-235, Spring.
    11. Vassiliki Manoussi & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2014. "Cooperation and Competition in Climate Change Policies: Mitigation and Climate Engineering when Countries are Asymmetric," DEOS Working Papers 1408, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    12. Goeschl, Timo & Perino, Grischa, 2007. "Innovation without magic bullets: Stock pollution and R&D sequences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 146-161, September.
    13. Rolf Golombek & Michael Hoel, 2011. "International Cooperation on Climate-friendly Technologies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 473-490, August.
    14. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    15. Moreno-Cruz, Juan B., 2015. "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 248-263.
    16. Ulrich J. Wagner, 2001. "The Design of Stable International Environmental Agreements: Economic Theory and Political Economy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 377-411, July.
    17. David Popp, 2010. "Innovation and Climate Policy," NBER Working Papers 15673, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Teubal, Morris, 1978. "Threshold R&D levels in sectors of advanced technology," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 395-402, May.
    19. Scott Barrett, 2006. "Climate Treaties and "Breakthrough" Technologies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 22-25, May.
    20. David Popp, 2010. "Innovation and Climate Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 275-298, October.
    21. Martin L. Weitzman, 2015. "A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free-Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(4), pages 1049-1068, October.
    22. Michael Finus & Christos Kotsogiannis & Steve McCorriston, 2013. "The International Dimension of Climate Change Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(2), pages 151-160, October.
    23. Timo Goeschl & Grischa Perino, 2017. "The Climate Policy Hold‐Up: Green Technologies, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Abatement Incentives of International Agreements," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 709-732, July.
    24. David Keith & Minh Ha-Duong & Joshua K. Stolaroff, 2006. "Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air," Post-Print halshs-00003926, HAL.
    25. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1996. "Pollution permits and environmental innovation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1-2), pages 127-140, October.
    26. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Helmers, Christian, 2013. "Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 33-51.
    27. Barrett, Scott, 2013. "Climate treaties and approaching catastrophes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 235-250.
    28. Daniel Heyen & Thilo Wiertz & Peter Irvine, 2015. "Regional disparities in SRM impacts: the challenge of diverging preferences," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 557-563, December.
    29. Kamien, Morton I & Muller, Eitan & Zang, Israel, 1992. "Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1293-1306, December.
    30. David G. Victor, 2008. "On the regulation of geoengineering," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(2), pages 322-336, Summer.
    31. repec:awi:wpaper:540 is not listed on IDEAS
    32. Michael Finus & Dirk Rübbelke, 2013. "Public Good Provision and Ancillary Benefits: The Case of Climate Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(2), pages 211-226, October.
    33. Barrett, Scott, 2001. "International cooperation for sale," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1835-1850, December.
    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. Heyen, Daniel & Horton, Joshua & Moreno-Cruz, Juan, 2019. "Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 153-177.
    2. Jean D. Kabongo, 2019. "Sustainable development and research and development intensity in U.S. manufacturing firms," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 556-566, May.
    3. Pfrommer, Tobias, 2018. "Diverging Regional Climate Preferences and the Assessment of Solar Geoengineering," Working Papers 0654, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    4. Pfrommer, Tobias, 2018. "A Model of Solar Radiation Management Liability," Working Papers 0644, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.

    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. Heyen, Daniel, 2016. "Strategic conflicts on the horizon: R&D incentives for environmental technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68104, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Heyen, Daniel, 2015. "Strategic Conflicts on the Horizon: R&D Incentives for Environmental Technologies," Working Papers 0584, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Heyen, Daniel & Horton, Joshua & Moreno-Cruz, Juan, 2019. "Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 153-177.
    4. Timo Goeschl & Grischa Perino, 2017. "The Climate Policy Hold‐Up: Green Technologies, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Abatement Incentives of International Agreements," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(3), pages 709-732, July.
    5. Buchholz Wolfgang & Heindl Peter, 2015. "Ökonomische Herausforderungen des Klimawandels," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 324-350, December.
    6. El-Sayed, Abeer & Rubio, Santiago J., 2014. "Sharing R&D investments in cleaner technologies to mitigate climate change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 168-180.
    7. Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2017. "Quantifying Non-cooperative Climate Engineering," Working Papers 2017.58, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Helm, Carsten & Schmidt, Robert C., 2015. "Climate cooperation with technology investments and border carbon adjustment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-130.
    9. Eichner, Thomas & Kollenbach, Gilbert, 2022. "Environmental agreements, research and technological spillovers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(1), pages 366-377.
    10. Manoussi, Vassiliki & Xepapadeas, Anastasios & Emmerling, Johannes, 2018. "Climate engineering under deep uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 207-224.
    11. Johannes Urpelainen, 2014. "Sinking costs to increase participation: technology deployment agreements enhance climate cooperation," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(3), pages 229-240, July.
    12. Miguel Borrero & Santiago J. Rubio, 2022. "An adaptation-mitigation game: does adaptation promote participation in international environmental agreements?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 439-479, September.
    13. Todd Sandler, 2018. "Collective action and geoengineering," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 105-125, March.
    14. Finus, Michael & Pintassilgo, Pedro, 2013. "The role of uncertainty and learning for the success of international climate agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 29-43.
    15. Bayramoglu, Basak & Finus, Michael & Jacques, Jean-François, 2018. "Climate agreements in a mitigation-adaptation game," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 101-113.
    16. Hong, Fuhai & Karp, Larry, 2012. "International Environmental Agreements with mixed strategies and investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 685-697.
    17. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson Caputo Delfino Silva, 2022. "Endogenous Abatement Technology Agreements under Environmental Regulation," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-30, April.
    18. Matthew McGinty, 2020. "Leadership and Free-Riding: Decomposing and Explaining the Paradox of Cooperation in International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 449-474, October.
    19. Lassi Ahlvik & Yulia Pavlova, 2013. "A Strategic Analysis of Eutrophication Abatement in the Baltic Sea," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 353-378, November.
    20. Hans Gersbach & Quirin Oberpriller & Martin Scheffel, 2019. "Double Free-Riding in Innovation and Abatement: A Rules Treaty Solution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 449-483, June.

    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:wsi:ccexxx:v:07:y:2016:i:04:n:s2010007816500135. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/cce/cce.shtml .

    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.