Government intervention in energy conservation: Justification and warning

Extant studies on energy conservation are mainly about the trueness of market failures and how efficacious one instrument is relative to others for certain “true” market failure, leaving the dialectics between market and government and thereby government addiction being ignored. In order to make a shift, this paper proposes a “clinical” framework whereby energy conservation is viewed as a part of public health promotion and (dis)advantages of both market and government are dialectically integrated. Under this framework, an optional model with some hypotheses is proposed. The framework, hypotheses and model are illustrated and empirically tested with the evidence from China. As inferred from the model and confirmed with the tests, justification and intensity of government intervention to energy conservation depend on the urgency of task and the society's self-efficacy. Ignoring such dependence might cause government addiction, a compulsive engagement in government intervention despite adverse consequences. Future studies and policies are recommended to be more adherent to clinical principles and more alert to government addiction. Better indicators and models, especially self-efficacy indicator(s) of the society, are required to explore.