IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v67y2014icp737-746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Banning the bulb: Institutional evolution and the phased ban of incandescent lighting in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Howarth, Nicholas A.A.
  • Rosenow, Jan

Abstract

Much academic attention has been directed at analysing energy efficiency investments through the lens of ‘behavioural failure’. These studies have challenged the neoclassical framing of regulation which emphasises the efficiency benefits of price based policy, underpinned by the notion of rational individual self-mastery. The increasing use of a regulatory ban on electric lamps in many countries is one of the most recent and high profile flash points in this dialectic of ‘freedom-versus-the-state’ in the public policy discourse. This paper interrogates this debate through a study of electric lamp diffusion in Germany. It is argued that neoclassical theory and equilibrium analysis is inadequate as a tool for policy analysis as it takes the formation of market institutions, such as existing regulations, for granted. Further still, it may be prone to encourage idealistic debates around such grand narratives which may in practice simply serve those who benefit most from the status quo. Instead we argue for an evolutionary approach which we suggest offers a more pragmatic framing tool which focuses on the formation of market institutions in light of shifting social norms and political goals—in our case, progress towards energy efficiency and environmental goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Howarth, Nicholas A.A. & Rosenow, Jan, 2014. "Banning the bulb: Institutional evolution and the phased ban of incandescent lighting in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 737-746.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:67:y:2014:i:c:p:737-746
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513011907
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.060?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. Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry & Richard Lajeunesse, 2008. "Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 121-128, October.
    2. Hazilla, Michael & Kopp, Raymond J, 1990. "Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 853-873, August.
    3. J. Delbeke & G. Klaassen & T. van Ierland & P. Zapfel, 2010. "The Role of Environmental Economics in Recent Policy Making at the European Commission," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 24-43, Winter.
    4. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen L., 2004. "Retrospective Examination of Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Policies," Discussion Papers 10477, Resources for the Future.
    5. Baumol, William J, 1972. "On Taxation and the Control of Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 307-322, June.
    6. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    7. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco, 2008. "Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 447-460, June.
    8. repec:dgr:umamer:2005008 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Jason F. Shogren & Laura O. Taylor, 2008. "On Behavioral-Environmental Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 26-44, Winter.
    10. Ben Kriechel & Thomas Ziesemer, 2009. "The environmental Porter hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 267-294.
    11. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    12. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. DeCanio, Stephen J, 1998. "The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 441-454, April.
    14. Blumstein, Carl & Goldstone, Seymour & Lutzenhiser, Loren, 2000. "A theory-based approach to market transformation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 137-144, February.
    15. Howarth, Richard B. & Andersson, Bo, 1993. "Market barriers to energy efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 262-272, October.
    16. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Organizations and Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 25-44, Spring.
    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. Schleich, Joachim & Mills, Bradford & Dütschke, Elisabeth, 2014. "A brighter future? Quantifying the rebound effect in energy efficient lighting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 35-42.
    2. Alhazmi, Mansour & Sailor, David J. & Levinson, Ronnen, 2023. "A review of challenges, barriers, and opportunities for large-scale deployment of cool surfaces," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Daniel Rosenbloom & Adrian Rinscheid, 2020. "Deliberate decline: An emerging frontier for the study and practice of decarbonization," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    4. Martin Burgess & Mark Whitehead, 2020. "Just Transitions , Poverty and Energy Consumption: Personal Carbon Accounts and Households in Poverty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Ringel, Marc & Schlomann, Barbara & Krail, Michael & Rohde, Clemens, 2016. "Towards a green economy in Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1293-1303.
    6. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(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. Nicholas Howarth, 2011. "Clean Energy Technology and the Role of Non-Carbon Price-Based Policy: An Evolutionary Economics Perspective," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 871-891, October.
    2. Eric Knight & Nicholas Howarth, 2011. "Clean Energy Technology and the Role of Non-Carbon Price Based Policy: an Evolutionary Economics Perspective," CCEP Working Papers 1102, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. Knight, Eric & Howarth, Nicholas, 2011. "Clean energy technology and the role of non-carbon price based policy: an evolutionary economics perspective," Working Papers 249388, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    4. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    5. Ehrenfeld, Wilfried, 2012. "Towards a Theory of Climate Innovation - A Model Framework for Analyzing Drivers and Determinants," IWH Discussion Papers 1/2012, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    6. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    7. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Paglialunga, Elena, 2018. "The employment impact of private and public actions for energy efficiency: Evidence from European industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 250-267.
    8. Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2011. "The Porter hypothesis and hyperbolic discounting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 167-176.
    9. Giulio Cainelli & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Simone Borghesi, 2012. "The European Emission Trading Scheme and environmental innovation diffusion: Empirical analyses using Italian CIS data," Working Papers 201201, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    10. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    11. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    12. Nathalie Lazaric & Kevin Maréchal, 2010. "Overcoming inertia: insights from evolutionary economics into improved energy and climate policy," Post-Print hal-00452205, HAL.
    13. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    14. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    15. Lorena D’Agostino, 2015. "How MNEs respond to environmental regulation: integrating the Porter hypothesis and the pollution haven hypothesis," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 32(2), pages 245-269, August.
    16. Costantini, Valeria & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2012. "On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 132-153.
    17. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Giulio Cainelli & Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2011. "Enviromental Innovations, Complementarity and Local/Global Cooperation," Working Papers 201104, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    19. Erik Hille & Patrick Möbius, 2019. "Environmental Policy, Innovation, and Productivity Growth: Controlling the Effects of Regulation and Endogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1315-1355, August.
    20. B. Howarth, Richard & Haddad, Brent M. & Paton, Bruce, 2000. "The economics of energy efficiency: insights from voluntary participation programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 477-486, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Energy; Efficiency; Regulation;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:enepol:v:67:y:2014:i:c:p:737-746. 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/enpol .

    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.