sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Renewable Energy<br />
“opening <strong>of</strong> the technological black-box” allowed the better characterisation <strong>of</strong> technical<br />
knowledge as a “non-rival” but potentially “excludable” good (Romer, 1986), or <strong>of</strong> human<br />
capital with positive externalities arising from its concentration in specific places (Lucas, 1988;<br />
see also Weyant, 1997). This movement provided the framework for the new “endogenous<br />
growth theory” which allows for an explanation as to why in the real world there is nothing like a<br />
“steady state economy” - at least up to now - <strong>and</strong> why important differences may exist or appear<br />
in the <strong>economic</strong> growth rates <strong>of</strong> different regions.<br />
In the neo-Schumpeterain or “evolutionary” line <strong>of</strong> thinking, many issues <strong>and</strong> questions had<br />
already been raised by Schumpeter; they included (see Freeman, 1994):<br />
- the description <strong>of</strong> TC as a three-step process, i.e. “invention - innovation - diffusion”;<br />
- an identification <strong>of</strong> different agents <strong>of</strong> TC, including the “innovators” <strong>and</strong> the “imitators”;<br />
- a discussion <strong>of</strong> the links between innovation <strong>and</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the firm <strong>and</strong> the <strong>economic</strong><br />
structure (the “young Shumpeter” pointing to the role <strong>of</strong> the individual entrepreneur or small<br />
size firms, while the “old Schumpeter” recognises also as entrepreneurs the large oligopolistic<br />
firms with formalised R&D activities);<br />
- the “clustering” <strong>of</strong> different innovations during specific periods that lead to “long waves” in<br />
<strong>economic</strong> growth.<br />
Diagram 1<br />
Exogenous, induced <strong>and</strong> endogenous technical change<br />
TC<br />
Exogenous TC Inducement factors Path-dependency<br />
inventions<br />
stochastic events<br />
learning by doing<br />
increasing returns<br />
Supply-Push<br />
Dem<strong>and</strong>-Pull<br />
R&D <strong>and</strong> technol.<br />
opportunities<br />
Factors <strong>of</strong><br />
production<br />
Further developments in the neo-Schumpeterian perspective analysed the following<br />
controversial, <strong>and</strong>, in some cases, overlapping, issues:<br />
- the degree <strong>of</strong> appropriability <strong>of</strong> technological knowledge <strong>and</strong> the role <strong>of</strong> learning from<br />
external <strong>and</strong> internal sources;<br />
- the consequences <strong>of</strong> the cumulative, localised <strong>and</strong> tacit nature <strong>of</strong> technological knowledge,<br />
associated with the phenomenon <strong>of</strong> learning by doing, -using, -interacting;<br />
- the pre-determined features <strong>of</strong> technology evolution (the “paradigms” <strong>and</strong> their corresponding<br />
“trajectories”, Dosi 1982, 1988 ; “technological avenues” <strong>and</strong> “guidepost technology”, Sahal);<br />
108