Missions-oriented RD&D institutions in energy between 2000 and 2010: A comparative analysis of China, the United Kingdom, and the United States
In the first decade of the 21st century, governments in many countries around the world expanded or redesigned their support for the development and deployment of advanced energy-supply and energy-demand technologies. By analyzing the institutions that have been created to stimulate energy technology innovation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and China-three countries with very different sizes, political systems and cultures, natural resources, and histories of involvement in the energy sector-this paper highlights how variations in national objectives and industrial and political environments have translated into variations in policy. The analysis shows that the countries’ activities differ in terms of three general elements: whether the government's various activities are coordinated or autonomous, whether the business community is significantly involved in the design and running of the initiatives, and whether the implementing institutions focus on single or multiple missions and innovation types. These differences constitute different types of governments’ attempts to activate the state-industry innovation complex. The paper concludes with a discussion of the trade-offs involved in the design of systems for public support of energy RD&D, points to possible gaps in the government approaches to support energy RD&D, and highlights areas of future research.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Adam B. Jaffe & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2004. "Technology Policy for Energy and the Environment," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 35-68 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ikenberry, G. John, 1986. "The irony of state strength: comparative responses to the oil shocks in the 1970s," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(01), pages 105-137, December.
- Weyant, John P., 2011. "Accelerating the development and diffusion of new energy technologies: Beyond the "valley of death"," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 674-682, July.
- David, Paul & Aghion, Philippe, 2008.
"Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking Policy Research and Practice in "STIG Systems","
12096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Aghion, Philippe & David, Paul A. & Foray, Dominique, 2009. "Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy research and practice in 'STIG Systems'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 681-693, May.
- Carlsson, B & Stankiewicz, R, 1991. "On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 93-118, April.
- William Bonvillian & Richard Atta, 2011. "ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA model to energy innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 469-513, October.
- Yi Qian, 2007. "Do National Patent Laws Stimulate Domestic Innovation in a Global Patenting Environment? A Cross-Country Analysis of Pharmaceutical Patent Protection, 1978-2002," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 436-453, August.
- Hu, Fang & Leung, Sidney C.M., 2012. "Top management turnover, firm performance and government control: Evidence from China's listed state-owned enterprises," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 235-262.
- Zhou, Yun, 2010. "Why is China going nuclear?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3755-3762, July.
- Jaramillo, Paulina & Samaras, Constantine & Wakeley, Heather & Meisterling, Kyle, 2009. "Greenhouse gas implications of using coal for transportation: Life cycle assessment of coal-to-liquids, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen pathways," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2689-2695, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:10:p:1742-1756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.