Stimulating energy-efficient innovations in the Dutch building sector: Empirical evidence from patent counts and policy lessons

Energy Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 7803-7817

  Noailly, Joëlle ^a   Batrakova, Svetlana ^b  

^a CPB NETHERLANDS BUREAU FOR ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Buildings; Energy policy; Innovations

Indexed keywords

AUSTRIA; BUILDING SECTORS; CARBON EMISSIONS; COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE; DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS; ENERGY EFFICIENT; ENERGY SAVING; GERMANY; HIGH EFFICIENCY; INNOVATION ACTIVITY; LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY; NETHERLANDS; PHILIPS; POLICY CHANGES; POLICY FRAMEWORK; POLICY INSTRUMENTS; SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES; SOLAR BOILERS; TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION; TOTAL ENERGY;

BOILERS; BUILDINGS; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY POLICY; INNOVATION; PUMPS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

BUILDING; COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY POLICY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INNOVATION; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLICY APPROACH;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 78049426733     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.040     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. ACE, 2004. Briefing on the energy performance of buildings directive. Association for the Conservation of Energy.
2. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., Hemous, D., 2009. The environment and directed technical change. NBER Working Paper 15451, October.
3. Amir R., Germain M., van Steenberghe V. On the impact of innovation on the marginal abatement cost curve. Journal of Public Economic Theory 2008, 10(6):985-1010.
4. Barradale, M., 2008. Impact of policy uncertainty in renewable energy investment: wind power and PTC. US Association for Energy Economics Working Paper 08-003.
5. Bauman Y., Lee M., Seeley K. Does technological innovation really reduce marginal abatement costs? Some theory, algebraic evidence and policy implications. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 40(4):507-527.
6. Beerepoot M., Beerepoot N. Government regulation as an impetus for innovation: evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residential building sector. Energy Policy 2007, 35:4812-4825.
7. Blok K., de Groot H., Luiten E., Rietbergen M. The Effectiveness of Policy Instruments for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Firms 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Comanor W.S., Scherer F.M. Patent statistics as a measure of technical change. Journal of Political Economy 1969, 77(3):392-398.
9. Cornet, M., Webbink, D., 2004. Lerend beleid: het versterken van beleid door experimenteren en evalueren, CPB Document 48.
10. Dekker, T., Vollebergh, H., de Vries, F., Withagen, C., 2009. How international environmental agreements trigger knowledge transfers: evidence from SO2 protocols, VU University Amsterdam.
11. Ecofys, 2009. Energiebesparing- en CO2-reductiepotentieel hybride lucht/water warmtepomp in de bestaande woningbouw. Ecofys Report, Juni.
12. Fischer C. Emissions pricing, spillovers and public investment in environmentally friendly technologies. Energy Economics 2008, 30(2):142-162.
13. Fischer C., Newell R. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 55(2):142-162.
14. Fischer C., Parry I., Pizer W. Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45(3):523-545.
15. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 1990, 28(4):1661-1707.
16. Hagedoorn J., Cloodt M. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research Policy 2003, 32:1365-1379.
17. Hascic, I., Johnstone, N., Michel, C., 2008. Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from patent counts. Paper presented at the European Association on Environmental and Resource Economists, Gothenburg, Sweden, 26 June.
18. Heijnes, H., de Jager, D., 1999. Inventarisatie milieu- en energiesubsidies 1985-1998. Ecofys, Utrecht.
19. Hicks J. The Theory of Wages 1932, MacMillan, London.
20. Jaffe A., Newell R., Stavins R. Technological change and the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:41-69.
21. Jaffe A., Newell R., Stavins R. A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics 2005, 54:164-174.
22. Jaffe A., Palmer K. Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics 1997, 79:610-619.
23. Johnstone, N., Hascic, I., 2008. Environmental policy design and the fragmentation of international markets for innovation. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfmabstract_id=1370339.
24. Johnstone N., Hascic I., Popp D. Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: evidence based on patent counts. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 45(1):133-155.
25. Johnstone, N., Hascic, I., Scapecchi, P., 2009. Environmental policy stability and innovation in environmental technologies. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfmabstract_id=1370336.
26. Joosen S., Harmelink M., Blok K. Evaluatie Van het Klimaatbeleid in de Gebouwde Omgeving 1995-2002 2004, Ecofys Publication.
27. Lanjouw J., Mody A. Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Research Policy 1996, 25:549-571.
28. Martin S., Scott J. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy 2000, 29(4-5):437-447.
29. Mickwitz M., Hyvattinen H., Kivimaa P. The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies: popular claims versus case study experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008, 16(1):S162-S170.
30. Newell R., Jaffe A., Stavins R. The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1999, 114(3):941-975.
31. Noailly, J., 2010. Improving energy-efficiency in buildings: the impact of environmental policy on technological innovation. CPB Discussion Paper 137, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague, The Netherlands.
32. Patent Statistics Manual 2009, OECD, OECD Publishing.
33. Oudshof, B., Arentsen, M., Nonhebel, S., Biesiot, W., 1997. Analyse en evaluatie van beleidsinstrumenten voor energiebesparing, IVEM.
34. Pindyck R. Uncertainty in environmental economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2007, 1:45-65.
35. Popp D. Induced innovation and energy prices. American Economic Review 2002, 92(1):160-180.
36. 2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 51:46-71.
37. Porter M.E., van der Linde C.M. Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1995, 9(4):97-118.
38. Rennings K. Redefining innovation-eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics 2000, 32:319-322.
39. Schmookler J. The level of inventive activity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1954, 36(2):183-190.
40. Ulph, D., 1998. Environmental policy and technological innovation. In: Carraro, C., Siniscalaco, D. (Eds.), Frontiers of Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltensham, UK.
41. van Zanden, J., Verstegen, S., 1993. Groene geschiedenis van Nederland. KNAW, Het Spectrum.
42. Vollebergh, H., 2007. Differential impact of environmental policy instruments on technological change: a review of the empirical literature. Tinbergen Institute Working Paper.
43. Vries, F., Withagen, C., 2005. Innovation and environmental stringency: the case of sulfur dioxide abatement. centER Discussion Paper, no. 18.
44. VROM, 2009. Innovatieagenda energie - gebouwde omgeving. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.