IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/19939.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Eco-innovation - putting the EU on the path to a resource and energy efficient economy

Author

Listed:
  • Bleischwitz, Raimund

Abstract

The objective of this study is to support the European Parliament’s ITRE Committee in its work on the EU's industrial and energy policy and to give advice on the following issues: Why is the issue of resource scarcity back on the agenda? What are the strategic conclusions for the EU? What can the EU expect from eco-innovation in a large range of industrial sectors? Are existing measures meeting the EU aims and expectations, and what new policy initiatives should be set forward? To meet these objectives, this study is structured as follows: Chapter 2 will give an overview on resource scarcities. Chapter 3 elaborates on ecoinnovation, including trends, barriers and driving forces. Chapter 4 outlines proposals for future EU policies. Chapter 5 sketches out a possible vision for the future. Chapter 2 reveals recent findings on resource scarcity: Global extraction of natural resource is steadily increasing. Since 1980, global extraction of abiotic (fossil fuels, minerals) and biotic (agriculture, forestry, fishing) resources has augmented from 40 to 58 billion tonnes in 2005. Scenarios anticipate a total resource extraction of around 80 billion tonnes in 2020 (200 % of the 1980-value), necessary to sustain the worldwide economic growth. On average, a European consumes per year around three times the amount of resources of a citizen in the emerging countries while producing twice as much. Analysis on patterns of current resource use (direct and indirect use) is still in its infancy and shows data gaps. Based on country studies, however, one can arrive at tentative conclusions. A recent study on Germany reveals that ten production sectors account for more than 50 % of German Total Material Requirements (TMR). Industries of three areas are of strategic importance because here a huge number of technological interactions among production sectors take place: • Stones, construction, and housing = housing • Metals and car manufacturing = mobility • Agriculture, food and nutrition = food. The rapidly increasing demand for resources has led to an unprecedented boost in resource prices, especially during the last five years until the breakout of the financial crisis in Fall 2008. The EU is the world region that outsources the biggest part of resource extraction. In comparison to the overall global growth rate (45 % over the last 25 years), Europe’s resource extraction grew only by 3 %, but studies show that these domestic raw materials are increasingly substituted by imports from other world regions. World reserves in fossil fuels and metals are unevenly distributed across the world regions. Additionally, for various commodities, the peak of extraction has already been reached or is currently about to be reached. Not only for oil and gas, but also for critical metals such as Antimon, Gallium, Indium, Platinum and others the supply for European industry is at risk. Natural gas cannot replace oil as main energy source, once the latter is depleted. From this, the following main conclusions are derived: • The European economy is increasingly dependent on resource imports from other world regions. • Scarcity of ‘Critical metals’ will affect the European economy more subtle, but furtherreaching. High-tech industries, in particular the electronic industry, will be affected by deWuppertal Institute et al. Eco-Innovation iv clining availability of precious metals. Also the development of new eco-technologies, such as photovoltaic electricity generation, could be slowed down by resource scarcity. • It can be expected that worldwide competition for these resources will significantly increase in the near future, potentially leading to serious conflicts related to the access to resource reserves. • In order to deal with this increased scarcity of natural resources, a significant reduction of the worldwide resource use will be necessary. Chapter 3 gives a definition of eco-innovation as well as an overview of different types of eco-innovation and deals with measurement issues. Furthermore, it illustrates selected ecoinnovations in key areas, and highlights also trends, drivers and barriers analysed for these examples and illustrated by fishbone diagrams. The scrutinised eco-innovations and the regarding key conclusions are (1) In the area of housing a. “Deep Renovation”, which enables a minimisation of negative impacts on environment and health by system design and choice of components and is possible in nearly every building, though standardisation is limited, and b. “Smart Metering”, for which there is worldwide evidence that giving consumers appropriate, relevant information on their energy and water use is an important basis for additional measures leading to a reduction in this use and thus in GHG emissions. (2) In the area of mobility a. the “Green Electric Car” and b. “Car sharing”; (3) In the area of food and drink (a) the “Community Supported Agriculture” (CSA) and (b) “Sustainable Sourcing of Retailers”. The chapter concludes that eco-innovation has a crucial role to play in putting the EU on the path to a resource and energy efficient economy and thus significantly reducing the environmental impacts in each of the areas, housing, mobility and food and drink. Experts estimate that this is likely to become an $800 billion market worldwide by 2015 and a $ trillion market afterwards. Overcoming the barriers and building up eco-industries for energy and resource efficiency however calls for an active European Union. It requires the engagement of many different actors in society, and strategies should be implemented from many different sides. For an ecoinnovation to be fully accepted and diffused into wider society, a concerted effort must be made to engage people and target the emotional and psychological aspects required to reinforce its uptake. Chapter 4 (How to speed up eco-innovation in the EU) undertakes an attempt to analyse existing EU policies and initiatives; selected member states’ efforts are also considered. This is done via a comparative methodology with a joint format. The annex to this study contains three further briefing notes on this issue written by other authors. The following policies, initiatives and instruments are considered in this study: • The Eco-design Directive (2005/32/EU) – focuses on energy use for a number of products and neglects other environmental dimensions, functional innovation and system innovation are not yet covered; Wuppertal Institute et al. Eco-Innovation v • The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) – first experience suggests a bias in favour of recycling technologies and energy along existing technology trajectories, less visibility of resource efficiency and new pathways; • The Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development (FP7); • The Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP) – Despite many achievements, environmental technologies still remain a niche market; further green procurement, greater financial investments, the establishment of technology verification and performance targets systems, and focussing on sectors with high gains is needed; • The Directive on the energy performance of buildings (EPBD) – good ambitions, but a lack of implementation in many Member states, implementation requires both a speeding up and a scaling up, addressing the resource efficiency of buildings is desirable; • The European Union Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy • The European Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) • The UK Aggregates Levy and Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) • Environment-driven Business Development in Sweden • The European Union Energy Label. The analysis identifies specific gaps in the areas of entrepreneurship, pre-commercialisation and mass market development; in addition, the opportunities to refurbish buildings in Europe have not fully been deployed yet (see Figure 1). Based on this and supported by an expert workshop conducted by the ITRE on 12 November 08, the study formulates proposals that could support the EU to speed up eco-innovation. They promote market-based incentives and the reform of existing initiatives; in addition, new proposals are presented that address specific gaps in the areas of entrepreneurship, pre-commercialisation as well as the opportunities to refurbish buildings in Europe. Bearing in mind the importance of construction as a driving forces of resource use, the relevance of the construction industry in the EU Lead market Strategy and current deficits, and the overall success of market-based instruments, this study proposes to extend the existing eco-tax base in Europe by establishing a minimum tax directive on construction minerals. It is expected to drive up eco-innovation because it gives incentives to improve resource efficiency and to refurbish old buildings. In addition, it generates revenues, which can be utilized for specific eco-innovation programmes. A greening of the EU budget would be the material basis for speeding up eco-innovation beyond 2009. This would have to follow two strategic lines: on the one hand unsustainable spending would have to be cut, on the other hand the money saved by this activity could be shifted to support investments in structural eco-innovation. A budgetary strategy could include the following elements: • Further redirecting CAP from direct payments towards integrated rural development schemes, which support eco-innovation in the area of sustainable production of highquality food and biomass. These integrated rural development schemes should include integrated logistical, economic and technological strategies for adapted sustainable natural resource management in the landscape (food, water, soil, biodiversity and closed-loop biomass production and use). These strategies would have to be highly adapted to local economies and landscape conditions thus inducing local eco-innovation and employment schemes. Wuppertal Institute et al. Eco-Innovation vi • Rigorous environmental appraisal and reduction of Regional Policy schemes for large infrastructure projects which could support long-term unsustainable development paths, shifting towards funding for eco-innovation e.g. in the area of decentralized electricity grids (supporting green electric cars and renewable energies) and lighthouse projects on resource efficient construction and resource recovery. • Redirection of Regional Funds from end-of-pipe technologies towards integrated solutions and eco-innovation (e.g. decentralized water treatment) • More advanced schemes for improving energy and material productivity of economies would require an implementation of the CREST guidelines for improved coordination between Structural Funds, the Research Framework Program and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP). Only such a concentration of forces could achieve a measurable improvement of resource productivity in Europe by means of regional eco-innovation clusters and a European network of regional resource efficiency agencies. • Integration spending of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for improved cofinancing of eco-innovation Figure 1: Gaps of current EU programmes on eco-innovation Engaging industry in developing eco innovation for sustainable ways of living is considered to be essential. The study identifies six strategy areas where industry can act: 1. Strategy Area 1: Creating and satisfying demand for green and fair products 2. Strategy Area 2: Communicating for low impact product use 3. Strategy Area 3: Innovative after sales services 4. Strategy Area 4: Product and service innovations Wuppertal Institute et al. Eco-Innovation vii 5. Strategy Area 5: Service-oriented business models 6. Strategy Area 6: Leadership for social change and socially responsible business The study formulates proposals to strengthen the SCP Action Plan accordingly, with a special focus on a framework for smarter consumption and leaner production. green public procurement and international processes. Following the gaps identified above, the study also proposes to establish three new initiatives: • A European Trust Funds for Eco-Entrepreneurship, intended to support system innovation driven by new companies; • A Technology Platform for Resource-light industries, intended to develop new markets for European manufacturing industries; • A Programme to foster energy and resource efficiency in the building sector, intended to foster • The deployment of existing opportunities in that area. Finally, a few thoughts are given to the international dimension of eco-innovation and a possible vision of an eco-innovative Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Bleischwitz, Raimund, 2009. "Eco-innovation - putting the EU on the path to a resource and energy efficient economy," MPRA Paper 19939, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:19939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19939/1/MPRA_paper_19939.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hinterberger, Friedrich & Luks, Fred & Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich, 1997. "Material flows vs. 'natural capital': What makes an economy sustainable?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, October.
    2. ,, 2002. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 193-194, February.
    3. European Commission, 2007. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2007 edition," Taxation trends 2007, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    4. A. Greening, Lorna & Greene, David L. & Difiglio, Carmen, 2000. "Energy efficiency and consumption -- the rebound effect -- a survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 389-401, June.
    5. ,, 2002. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 541-545, April.
    6. ,, 2002. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 1007-1017, August.
    7. European Commission, 1998. "Structures of the taxation systems in the European Union 1970-1996," Taxation trends 1998, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    8. ,, 2002. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 1461-1465, December.
    9. European Commission, 2011. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2011 edition," Taxation trends 2011, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    10. European Commission, 2013. "Taxation trends in the European Union: 2013 edition," Taxation trends 2013, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    11. Bleischwitz, Raimund, 2003. "Cognitive and institutional perspectives of eco-efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 453-467, October.
    12. ,, 2002. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 1273-1289, October.
    13. ,, 2002. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 819-821, June.
    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. Bleischwitz, Raimund & Andersen, Lars-Morten, 2009. "Informational Barriers to Energy Efficiency – Theory and European Policies," MPRA Paper 19937, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Patrick Schroeder & Manisha Anantharaman, 2017. "“Lifestyle Leapfrogging” in Emerging Economies: Enabling Systemic Shifts to Sustainable Consumption," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 3-23, March.
    3. Doran, Justin & Ryan, Geraldine, 2012. "Regulation and Firm Perception, Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance," MPRA Paper 44578, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Michał Dudek & Wioletta Wrzaszcz, 2020. "On the Way to Eco-Innovations in Agriculture: Concepts, Implementation and Effects at National and Local Level. The Case of Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Scarpellini, S. & Valero, A. & Llera, E. & Aranda, A., 2013. "Multicriteria analysis for the assessment of energy innovations in the transport sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 160-168.
    6. Philipp Schepelmann, 2010. "From Beast to Beauty? Ecological industry policy in North Rhine-Westphalia," EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco / Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, vol. 75(04), pages 104-121.
    7. Huriye SABANCI ÖZER, 2012. "A Review of the Literature on Process Innovation in Remanufacturing," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 2(3), pages 139-155.
    8. Tomasz Kijek & Anna Matras-Bolibok, 2020. "Spatial Distribution of Eco-Innovation Performance: Evidence from European Countries," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 766-778.
    9. Păcesilă, Mihaela & Ciocoiu, Carmen Nadia, 2017. "Eco-Innovation and its Determinants: A Review of the Emerging Literature," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2017), Dubrovnik, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 7-9 September 2017, pages 134-144, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    10. Sanni, Maruf, 2018. "Drivers of eco-innovation in the manufacturing sector of Nigeria," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 303-314.
    11. Eun Kyung Jang & Mi Sun Park & Tae Woo Roh & Ki Joo Han, 2015. "Policy Instruments for Eco-Innovation in Asian Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-29, September.
    12. Justin Doran & Geraldine Ryan, 2016. "The Importance of the Diverse Drivers and Types of Environmental Innovation for Firm Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 102-119, February.
    13. João Lopes & Mário Franco, 2019. "Review About Regional Development Networks: an Ecosystem Model Proposal," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 275-297, March.
    14. Pérez-Pérez, Juan Fernando & Parra, Juan Felipe & Serrano-García, Jakeline, 2021. "A system dynamics model: Transition to sustainable processes," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Mi Sun Park & Raimund Bleischwitz & Ki Joo Han & Eun Kyung Jang & Ji Hyung Joo, 2017. "Eco-Innovation Indices as Tools for Measuring Eco-Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-28, November.
    16. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Roberto Zoboli, 2012. "A Political Economy Approach to Resource Taxation: Weak Sustainability, Revenue Recycling and Regional Planning," Working Papers 201202, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    17. Nguyen Thanh-Dat & Kifor Claudiu Vasile, 2015. "The Sustainability in a Quality Improvement Model," Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education, Sciendo, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, November.
    18. Bettina Bahn-Walkowiak & Raimund Bleischwitz & Martin Distelkamp & Mark Meyer, 2012. "Taxing construction minerals: a contribution to a resource-efficient Europe," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 25(1), pages 29-43, July.
    19. Florian Flachenecker & Martin Kornejew, 2019. "The causal impact of material productivity on microeconomic competitiveness and environmental performance in the European Union," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(1), pages 87-122, January.
    20. Mihaela PÃCESILÃ & Carmen Nadia CIOCOIU, 2017. "Systematic Literature Review On Eco-Innovation Determinants," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(3), pages 30-44, September.
    21. Teodoro Gallucci & Vesselina Dimitrova & Georgi Marinov, 2019. "Interrelation between Eco-Innovation and Intra-Industry Trade—A Proposal for a Proxy Indicator of Sustainability in the EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-13, November.
    22. Wei Zhao & Patrick Schroeder, 2010. "Sustainable consumption and production: Trends, challenges and options for the Asia‐Pacific region," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 34(1), pages 4-15, February.
    23. Schirrmeister, Elna & Warnke, Philine, 2013. "Envisioning structural transformation — lessons from a foresight project on the future of innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 453-466.

    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. Cambier, Adrien & Chardy, Matthieu & Figueiredo, Rosa & Ouorou, Adam & Poss, Michael, 2022. "Optimizing subscriber migrations for a telecommunication operator in uncertain context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 308-321.
    2. Libura, Marek, 2007. "On the adjustment problem for linear programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(1), pages 125-134, November.
    3. Christophe Loussouarn & Carine Franc & Yann Videau & Julien Mousquès, 2021. "Can General Practitioners Be More Productive? The Impact of Teamwork and Cooperation with Nurses on GP Activities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 680-698, March.
    4. Tschakert, Petra, 2016. "Shifting Discourses of Vilification and the Taming of Unruly Mining Landscapes in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 123-132.
    5. Isabelle Boutron & Peter John & David J. Torgerson, 2010. "Reporting Methodological Items in Randomized Experiments in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 112-131, March.
    6. Ben Slimane, Faten & Padilla Angulo, Laura, 2019. "Strategic change and corporate governance: Evidence from the stock exchange industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 206-218.
    7. Weijun Xie & Yanfeng Ouyang & Sze Chun Wong, 2016. "Reliable Location-Routing Design Under Probabilistic Facility Disruptions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 1128-1138, August.
    8. Natalia Nikolaevna Natocheeva* & Yuri Alexandrovich Rovensky & Yuri Yuryevich Rusanov & Tatiana Viktorovna Belyanchikova & Anna Anatolevna Staurskaya, 2018. "Optimizing Variability of Approaches to Regulatory Financing of Higher Education Services," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 221-227:3.
    9. Sahar Validi & Arijit Bhattacharya & P. J. Byrne, 2020. "Sustainable distribution system design: a two-phase DoE-guided meta-heuristic solution approach for a three-echelon bi-objective AHP-integrated location-routing model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 191-222, July.
    10. Andy Hall, 2005. "Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: an innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 611-630.
    11. Athinoula A. Kosti & Simon Colreavy-Donnelly & Fabio Caraffini & Zacharias A. Anastassi, 2020. "Efficient Computation of the Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation with Time-Dependent Coefficients," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-12, March.
    12. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    13. Lan, Heng-you, 2021. "Approximation-solvability of population biology systems based on p-Laplacian elliptic inequalities with demicontinuous strongly pseudo-contractive operators," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    14. Shelly Jeffcott & Nick Pidgeon & Andrew Weyman & John Walls, 2006. "Risk, Trust, and Safety Culture in U.K. Train Operating Companies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1105-1121, October.
    15. Rainer Niemann, 2004. "Asymmetric Taxation and Cross-Border Investment Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 1219, CESifo.
    16. Zhenghua Gu & Xiaomeng Cao & Guoliang Liu & Weizhen Lu, 2014. "Optimizing Operation Rules of Sluices in River Networks Based on Knowledge-driven and Data-driven Mechanism," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(11), pages 3455-3469, September.
    17. Ian N. Gregory & Paul S. Ell, 2005. "Breaking the boundaries: geographical approaches to integrating 200 years of the census," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 419-437, March.
    18. Alexis Comber & Paul Harris, 2018. "Geographically weighted elastic net logistic regression," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 317-341, October.
    19. Fuamenya A. Francis, 2018. "Impact of Management Practices in Industries in the Industrial ¨C Free ¨C Trade Zones in Douala, Littoral Region of Cameroon: ¡°Challenges and Prospects¡±," Business and Management Research, Business and Management Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 7(3), pages 10-26, September.
    20. K. Padmanathan & N. Kamalakannan & P. Sanjeevikumar & F. Blaabjerg & J. B. Holm-Nielsen & G. Uma & R. Arul & R. Rajesh & A. Srinivasan & J. Baskaran, 2019. "Conceptual Framework of Antecedents to Trends on Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generators for Wind Energy Conversion Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-39, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Eco-Inovation; Energy efficiency; EU Policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:19939. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.