A diverse and resilient financial system for investments in the energy transition

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Volumn 28, Issue , 2017, Pages 24-32

  Polzin, Friedemann ^a   Sanders, Mark ^a   Täube, Florian ^b,c  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b European Management School   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC INSTRUMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MARKET; FINANCIAL SYSTEM; FIRM SIZE; INNOVATION; INVESTMENT; MARKET TRANSITION; POLLUTION CONTROL; RESOURCE USE; SUSTAINABILITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WATER MANAGEMENT;

EID: 85026538361     PISSN: 18773435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.004     Document Type: Review

References (100)

1. Jefferson, M., Accelerating the transition to sustainable energy systems. Energy Policy 36 (2008), 4116–4125.
2. Hall, S., Foxon, T.J., Bolton, R., Investing in low-carbon transitions: energy finance as an adaptive market. Clim Policy, 2015, 1–19 This highly policy relevant article explores theories behind the neoclassical approach to innovation finance taking which assume that capital markets function efficiently and the structural co-evolutionary approach that emphasizes social mechanism to influence financiers behavior. On the basis of the analysis of the UK electricity market reform and renewable energy finance the authors propose a theoretical lens that takes into account planetary boundaries. The adaptive market hypothesis states that the investment environment together with investors’ behavior can change over time implicating that behavioral and structural conditions work in financial markets.
3. Rosen, R.A., Guenther, E., The economics of mitigating climate change: what can we know?. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2014, 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.013.
4. IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5. Int. 2014.
5. Iyer, G., Hultman, N., Eom, J., McJeon, H., Patel, P., Clarke, L., Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90 (2015), 103–118 In this paper, the authors model the necessary large-scale deployment of low-carbon technologies. Next to economic factors hindering the adoption, the analysis points to institutional, behavioral and social factors that relate to both the uncertainty in climate policy as well as technology inherent characteristics. Technological lock-in, network externalities, high upfront investments, uncertainty and policy risk are highlighted. Even without major delays in policy implementation, the diffusion of low-carbon technologies might be hindered, especially if the technologies are interdependent. For some technologies such as CCS and renewables the constraints are more costly than for others (e.g. nuclear and bioenergy).
6. Stern, N., Economic development, climate and values: making policy [Internet]. Proc R Soc B, 282, 2015.
7. 2 reduction but on the other hand more ocean acidification and increased land-use and loss of biodiversity.
8. IEA, Energy and Climate Change — World Energy Outlook Special Report. 2015, International Energy Agency.
9. IEA, World Energy Outlook 2015 [Internet]. 2015, International Energy Agency.
10. IEA, World Energy Investment Outlook [Internet]. 2016, International Energy Agency.
11. Polzin, F., Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation — a systematic review of barriers and solutions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 77 (2017), 525–535 This article is one of the first to systematically integrate the consequences of barriers to low-carbon innovation for innovation financing along the innovation cycle. Drawing from the innovation studies and entrepreneurial/innovation finance literatures the author emphasizes that technological, economic, institutional and political barriers have the most pronounced effect on investment. Policy makers possess a variety of instruments to address the barriers ranging from cutting fossil fuel (R&D) subsidies, leveling the institutional playing field and making risks of high-carbon and low-carbon technologies transparent to providing a consistent but adaptive long-term transition strategy.
12. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Environmental and climate innovation: limitations, policies and prices. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80 (2013), 11–23.
13. Negro, S.O., Alkemade, F., Hekkert, M.P., Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16 (2012), 3836–3846.
14. Perez, C., Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing.
15. Friebe, C.A., von Flotow, P., Täube, F.A., Exploring technology diffusion in emerging markets — the role of public policy for wind energy. Energy Policy 70 (2014), 217–226.
16. Mathews, J.A., Kidney, S., Mallon, K., Hughes, M., Mobilizing private finance to drive an energy industrial revolution. Energy Policy 38 (2010), 3263–3265.
17. Mazzucato, M., Financing innovation: creative destruction vs. destructive creation. Ind Corp Change 22 (2013), 851–867.
18. Demirel, P., Parris, S., Access to finance for innovators in the UK's environmental sector. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 27 (2015), 782–808 The authors show the early-stage finance gap specifically for innovative SMEs in the environmental sector using data from 330 firms. In this seminal study in the green tech sector, they argue that banks but also government support schemes discriminate SMEs that develop nascent technologies and venture capitalists fill this gap only to a very limited extend. Retained profits are hence the only way to finance these activities.
19. Mazzucato, M., The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. 2013, Anthem Press.
20. Haldane, A.G., May, R.M., Systemic risk in banking ecosystems. Nature 469 (2011), 351–355.
21. Fricke, D., Has the banking system become more homogeneous? Evidence from banks’ loan portfolios. Econ Lett 142 (2016), 45–48 In this paper, the similarity of loan portfolio in the Japanese banking system over the last 20 years is examined. The author finds that although overall similarity has decreased the banking system has become more concentrated and the largest banks have indeed become more similar. He concludes that the findings are likely to hold for other bank-based financial system such as Germany or the Netherlands.
22. Beunza, D., Stark, D., From dissonance to resonance: cognitive interdependence in quantitative finance. Econ Soc 41 (2012), 383–417.
23. Battiston, S., Caldarelli, G., Georg, C-P., May, R., Stiglitz, J., Complex derivatives. Nat Phys 9 (2013), 123–125.
24. Cueva, C., Rustichini, A., Is financial instability male-driven? Gender and cognitive skills in experimental asset markets. J Econ Behav Organ 119 (2015), 330–344 This article looks at the origins of financial instability that led to the past financial crises and impact financing the real economy. On the basis of experimental evidence in constructed asset markets, the authors highlight that male and female markets have comparable volatility, however confidence and risk preference (male attributes) drive financial instability. Hence reducing male domination and creating mixed-gender markets contribute to stability. Overall higher cognitive skills are associated with reduced price volatility.
25. Szabó, S., Jäger-Waldau, A., More competition: threat or chance for financing renewable electricity?. Energy Policy 36 (2008), 1436–1447.
26. European Commission, Survey on the Access to Finance of Enterprises (SAFE) — Analytical Report 2014 [Internet]., 2014, European Commission.
27. 111th Congress of the United States of America: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act [Internet]. 2010.
28. Bank for International Settlements: International Regulatory Framework for Banks (Basel III) [Internet]. 2010.
29. Block, J., Sandner, P., What is the effect of the financial crisis on venture capital financing? Empirical evidence from US Internet start-ups. Venture Cap. Int J Entrep Finance 11 (2009), 295–309.
30. Cowling, M., Liu, W., Minniti, M., Zhang, N., UK credit and discouragement during the GFC. Small Bus Econ 47 (2016), 1049–1074 The authors of this seminal paper show that during the financial crises, a small (2.5%) but significant number of UK SMEs have been discouraged through the perception of the market environment to apply for a loan. These firms also appear more risky but are aware of their riskiness. The financial crises added noise and uncertainty to the lending process to SMEs. Entrepreneurs also overrated the extend to which credit rationing was ongoing, which lead to sub-optimal lending activities.
31. Migendt, M., Polzin, F., Schock, F., Täube, F.A., von Flotow, P., Beyond venture capital: an exploratory study of the finance-innovation-policy nexus in cleantech [Internet]. Ind Corp Change, 2017, 10.1093/icc/dtx014 This article builds theory around unintended consequences of financial market regulation after the financial crisis for the financing of innovative cleantech companies. On the basis of 64 semi-structured interviews in the US and Germany the authors shed light on mechanisms of demand and supply for venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) along the innovation-finance-value chain. Institutional investors emerge as critical players, particularly negatively affected by financial market regulation that restricts their possibilities to investment in risky asset classes such as VC/PE.
32. Olmos, L., Ruester, S., Liong, S-J., On the selection of financing instruments to push the development of new technologies: application to clean energy technologies. Energy Policy 43 (2012), 252–266.
33. Block, J.H., Colombo, M.G., Cumming, D.J., Vismara, S., New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Bus Econ, 2017, 10.1007/s11187-016-9826-6 The authors provide a state-of-the-art overview about new actors in financial markets, the antecedents of their emergence and their peculiarities with regard to financing entrepreneurship and innovation. The authors compare nature of the capital (debt or equity), investment approach, goal and targets. They highlight the emergence of disintermediated players such as crowdfunding in addition to ‘classical’ entrepreneurial financiers such as VC and business angels. However the literature is biased towards these, neglecting other players such as family offices.
34. McCrone, A., Moslener, U., d'Estais, F., Usher, E., Grüning, C., Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016 [Internet]. 2016.
35. Zhang, B., Wardrop, R., Ziegler, T., Lui, A., Burton, J., James, A., Garvey, K., Moving Mainstream The European Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report. 2016, University of Cambridge.
36. Bergek, A., Mignon, I., Sundberg, G., Who invests in renewable electricity production? Empirical evidence and suggestions for further research. Energy Policy 56 (2013), 568–581.
37. Bhidé, A., A Call for Judgment: Sensible Finance for a Dynamic Economy. 2010, Oxford University Press, USA.
38. Bocken, N.M.P., Sustainable venture capital — catalyst for sustainable start-up success?. J Clean Prod 108 (2015), 647–658 This paper represents an important addition to the discussion about the suitability of venture capital for sustainable start-ups. On the basis of a series of interviews with investors and other stakeholders the author extracts drivers and barriers for successful venture capital engagement in sustainable firms. Key success factors include an innovative business model, collaborations with other stakeholders and a strong business case, whereas failure factors include a mismatch between investors and entrepreneur, a strong incumbent industry and a short-term investor mind-set of potential investor. The study underlines the important role of venture capitalists play in advancing the sustainability transition.
39. Kotha, R., George, G., Friends, family, or fools: entrepreneur experience and its implications for equity distribution and resource mobilization. J Bus Ventur 27 (2012), 525–543.
40. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Financial market and technological innovation. Ind Innov 18 (2011), 351–368.
41. Bertoni, F., Colombo, M.G., Quas, A., The patterns of venture capital investment in Europe. Small Bus Econ 45 (2015), 543–560.
42. Cumming, D., Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., ‘Cleantech’ venture capital around the world. Int Rev Financ Anal 44 (2016), 86–97 This research article provides the first cross-country account of drivers and barriers to venture capital investing in the cleantech sector from 1996 to 2010. Key drivers for this phenomenon include in descending order of importance: Media attention, rising oil prices and formal (e.g. regulatory quality and government effectiveness) and informal institutions. Uncertainty avoidance on the other hand represents a significant barrier, hence this need to be addressed in order to mobilize more private finance for cleantech.
43. Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., Wright, M., New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrep Theory Pract 39 (2015), 9–26 This paper starts the discussion about new forms of entrepreneurial finance that increase diversity in the financing landscape for start-ups. They establish an analytical framework for these new alternatives consisting of sources and types of capital, demand for capital (entrepreneurs perspective), resulting ownership and governance structures of the ventures as well as outcomes of the investment process.
44. Bank for International Settlements: C1 Summary of Debt Securities Outstanding [Internet]. 2017, Debt Secur Stat.
45. Polzin, F., Toxopeus, H., Stam, E., The wisdom of the crowd in funding: information heterogeneity and social networks of crowdfunders. Small Bus Econ, 2017, 10.1007/s11187-016-9829-3.
46. Etzion, D., Gehman, J., Ferraro, F., Avidan, M., Unleashing sustainability transformations through robust action. J Clean Prod 140:Pt 1 (2017), 167–178 This recent piece contributes to the discussion of how to accelerate the transition towards a green economy. On the basis of the case-study analysis of wind power, sustainability reporting and microcredit, the authors argue that instead of long-term visioning, planning and other management tools, robust action is appropriate to solving grand challenges such as climate change. Robust action consists of ‘leaders’ (organizations or individuals) that despite limited formal authority are able to leverage networks and actors to spur decentralized innovation.
47. Vasileiadou, E., Huijben, J.C.C.M., Raven, R.P.J.M., Three is a crowd? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 128 (2016), 142–155 Crowdfunding might fill the gap needed for an energy transition. The authors of this paper analyze a potential contribution based on a case study of wind energy in the Netherlands. Because of the low volumes (often too low for renewable energy projects), small scale, limited institutional support (e.g. from financial market authorities) and from incumbent regime actors such as electricity companies, the potential for crowdfunding to drive the energy transition is limited.
48. Haldane, A.G., The costs of short-termism. Rethinking Capitalism: Economics and Policy for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, 2016, Wiley Blackwell.
49. Mazzucato, M., Penna, C.C.R., Beyond market failures: the market creating and shaping roles of state investment banks. J Econ Policy Reform 19 (2016), 305–326.
50. Friebe, C.A., Flotow, P. von, Täube, F.A., Exploring the link between products and services in low-income markets — evidence from solar home systems. Energy Policy 52 (2013), 760–769.
51. Urpelainen, J., Yoon, S., Solar home systems for rural India: survey evidence on awareness and willingness to pay from Uttar Pradesh. Energy Sustain Dev 24 (2015), 70–78.
52. Cumming, D.J., Leboeuf, G., Schwienbacher, A., Crowdfunding cleantech. Energy Econ 65 (2017), 292–303 This paper presents a first analysis of cleantech crowdfunding, thereby providing insights on the financing of new alternative energy technologies by enabling inferences from large pools of small investors. It provides large sample evidence from 91 countries around the world that cleantech crowdfunding is more common when oil prices are rising, and more common in countries with low levels of individualism and uncertainty avoidance. The evidence is consistent with the view that while alternative energies are viewed as being more risky and investors face greater information asymmetries relative to other types of investment projects, there are mechanisms for entrepreneurs to mitigate these information problems and be at least as successful in cleantech crowdfunding markets.
53. Hockerts, K., Wüstenhagen, R., Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids — theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 25 (2010), 481–492.
54. Smink, M.M., Hekkert, M.P., Negro, S.O., Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies. Bus Strateg Environ 24 (2015), 86–101.
55. Mazzucato, M., Semieniuk, G., Public financing of innovation: new questions. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 33 (2017), 24–48.
56. Fischer, C., Newell, R.G., Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J Environ Econ Manag 55 (2008), 142–162.
57. Polzin, F., Migendt, M., Täube, F.A., von Flotow, P., Public policy influence on renewable energy investments — a panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 80 (2015), 98–111 In this account, the authors consolidate the literature on policy measures for renewable energy deployment and investment. It investigates the direct effect of policy instruments on investments in renewable energy technologies across a set of OECD countries in a longitudinal panel analysis. Results show that economic and fiscal incentives such as feed-in tariffs, mobilize institutional investors especially for less mature technologies whereas market-based instruments such as greenhouse gas emission trading systems are conducive to investments in mature technologies.
58. Bürer, M.J., Wüstenhagen, R., Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist's best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international cleantech investors. Energy Policy 37 (2009), 4997–5006.
59. Bird, L.A., Bolinger, M., Gagliano, T., Wiser, R., Brown, M., Parsons, B., Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States. Energy Policy 33 (2005), 1397–1407.
60. Menz, F.C., Vachon, S., The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: experiences from the states. Energy Policy 34 (2006), 1786–1796.
61. Manning, S., Reinecke, J., A modular governance architecture in-the-making: how transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions. Res Policy 45 (2016), 618–633 The authors provide an important perspective on sustainability transitions. They examine how the multi-level processes can be effectively governed taking transnational standard setters and the global coffee industry as an example. Relevant modules for a global governance (e.g. banning environmental harmful pesticides or ensure fair incomes for farmers) emerge in niche-markets and these standard setters ensure compatibility and diffusion across other countries.
62. Haley, U.C.V., Schuler, D.A., Government policy and firm strategy in the solar photovoltaic industry. Calif Manag Rev 54 (2011), 17–38.
63. Hoppmann, J., Peters, M., Schneider, M., Hoffmann, V.H., The two faces of market support — how deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry. Res Policy 42 (2013), 989–1003.
64. Roy, J., Ghosh, D., Ghosh, A., Dasgupta, S., Fiscal instruments: crucial role in financing low carbon transition in energy systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5 (2013), 261–269.
65. Couture, T., Gagnon, Y., An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: implications for renewable energy investment. Energy Policy 38 (2010), 955–965.
66. del Río, P., Bleda, M., Comparing the innovation effects of support schemes for renewable electricity technologies: a function of innovation approach. Energy Policy 50 (2012), 272–282.
67. Jenner, S., Groba, F., Indvik, J., Assessing the strength and effectiveness of renewable electricity feed-in tariffs in European Union countries. Energy Policy 52 (2013), 385–401.
68. Marques, A.C., Fuinhas, J.A., Are public policies towards renewables successful? Evidence from European countries. Renew Energy 44 (2012), 109–118.
69. Rodríguez, M.C., Haščič, I., Johnstone, N., Silva, J., Ferey, A., Renewable energy policies and private sector investment: evidence from financial microdata. Environ Resour Econ 62 (2015), 163–188 Building on unique investment micro-data (deal level) from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, this paper analyses the effect of a set of public policy instruments on investments in renewable energy in 87 countries from 2000 to 2011. Price-based instruments such as feed-in tariffs are positively related to private financial contributions. However when public entities co-finance a project no policy instrument mobilizes private finance.
70. Criscuolo, C., Menon, C., Environmental policies and risk finance in the green sector: cross-country evidence. Energy Policy 83 (2015), 38–56 The study provides an important link between the policies supporting green technologies and early-stage venture capital investments looking at 29 countries over a five-year period (2005–2010). The authors show both supply-push policies such as R&D support as well as demand-pull measures such as long-term feed-in tariff programs correspond to the demand for long-term stable policy support systems to mobilize private early-stage investments for green tech. A policy mix including these two elements is thus advisable according to the researchers.
71. Henriot, A., Financing investment in the European electricity transmission network: consequences on long-term sustainability of the TSOs financial structure. Energy Policy 62 (2013), 821–829.
72. Steinbach, A., Barriers and solutions for expansion of electricity grids — the German experience. Energy Policy 63 (2013), 224–229.
73. Delmas, M.A., Montes-Sancho, M.J., U.S. state policies for renewable energy: context and effectiveness. Energy Policy 39 (2011), 2273–2288.
74. Carley, S., State renewable energy electricity policies: an empirical evaluation of effectiveness. Energy Policy 37 (2009), 3071–3081.
75. Wüstenhagen, R., Menichetti, E., Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy 40 (2012), 1–10.
76. Masini, A., Menichetti, E., The impact of behavioural factors in the renewable energy investment decision making process: conceptual framework and empirical findings. Energy Policy 40 (2012), 28–38.
77. White, W., Lunnan, A., Nybakk, E., Kulisic, B., The role of governments in renewable energy: the importance of policy consistency. Biomass Bioenergy 57 (2013), 97–105.
78. Lüthi, S., Wüstenhagen, R., The price of policy risk — empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers. Energy Econ 34 (2012), 1001–1011.
79. Rogge, K.S., Reichardt, K., Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis. Res Policy 45 (2016), 1620–1635 Effective and efficient policy mixes are an important element of an innovation-led sustainability transition. Interacting instruments and policy strategy are elements of this analytical framework that can be applied to whole innovation systems, sectors or specific technologies. It allows policy maker to assess their impact on technological change in critical sectors such as energy. Consistency in policy instruments and coherence in policy processes are specifically valued by financial market actors.
80. Campiglio, E., Beyond carbon pricing: the role of banking and monetary policy in financing the transition to a low-carbon economy. Ecol Econ 121 (2016), 220–230 This unique paper examines the possible role of banks, banking regulation and monetary policy in a transition towards a sustainable economy. The author argues that in addition to fixing market and system failures surrounding low-carbon innovation, more direct instruments to mobilize private finance such as expanding credit creation towards green technologies through green reserve requirements as well as state investments banks are needed to fill the investment gap.
81. Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., Sembenelli, A., Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. J Public Econ 90 (2006), 1699–1723.
82. Keuschnigg, C., Nielsen, S.B., Tax policy, venture capital, and entrepreneurship. J Public Econ 87 (2003), 175–203.
83. Lerner, J., Tåg, J., Institutions and venture capital. Ind Corp Change 22 (2013), 153–182.
84. Cumming, D., Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Ventur Cap 13 (2011), 75–94.
85. Schmidt, T.S., Low-carbon investment risks and de-risking. Nat Clim Change 4 (2014), 237–239.
86. Marcus, A., Malen, J., Ellis, S., The promise and pitfalls of venture capital as an asset class for clean energy investment research questions for organization and natural environment scholars. Organ Environ 26 (2013), 31–60.
87. Boot, A.W.A., Thakor, A.V., Can relationship banking survive competition?. J Finance 55 (2000), 679–713.
88. Cohen, B.H., Scatigna, M., Banks and capital requirements: channels of adjustment. J Bank Finance 69:Suppl 1 (2016), S56–S69.
89. Elert, N., Henrekson, M., Stenkula, M., Institutional Reform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2017, Springer Publishers.
90. Hornuf, L., Schwienbacher, A., Should securities regulation promote equity crowdfunding?. Small Bus Econ, 2017, 10.1007/s11187-017-9839-9 This paper shows that too strong investor protection may harm small firms and entrepreneurial initiatives, which contrasts with the traditional ‘law and finance’ view that stronger investor protection is better. This situation is particularly relevant in equity crowdfunding, which refers to a recent financial innovation originating on the Internet that targets small and innovative firms. The paper shows that optimal regulation depends on the availability of an alternative early-stage financing such as venture capital and angel finance.
91. Vismara, S., Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding. Small Bus Econ 46 (2016), 579–590.
92. Authority, F.C., Regulatory Sandbox [Internet]. 2015.
93. Estrin, S., Gozman, D., Khavul, S., Case Study of the Equity Crowdfunding Landscape in London: An Entrepreneurial and Regulatory Perspective. 2016.
94. Enkvist, P., Nauclér, T., Rosander, J., A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction. McKinsey Q, 1, 2007, 34.
95. Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9 (1995), 97–118.
96. Ambec, S., Cohen, M.A., Elgie, S., Lanoie, P., The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?. Rev Environ Econ Policy 7 (2013), 2–22.
97. Jaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54 (2005), 164–174.
98. Kenney, M., Hargadon, A., Misguided policy?. Calif Manag Rev 54 (2012), 118–139.
99. Knight, F.H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. 1921, Houghton Mifflin Corporation.
100. Bhidé, A., How novelty aversion affects financing options. Capital Soc 1 (2006), 1–2.