Outcome indicators for the evaluation of energy policy instruments and technical change

The aim of this paper is to propose a framework for the evaluation of policy instruments designed to affect development and dissemination of new energy technologies. The evaluation approach is based on the analysis of selected outcome indicators describing the process of technical change, i.e. the development and dissemination of new energy technologies, on the basis of a socio-technical systems approach. The outcome indicators are used to analyse the effect, in terms of outcome, and outcome scope of the policy instruments as well as the extent to which the policy instruments support diversity, learning and institutional change. The analysis of two cases of evaluations, of energy efficiency policy and wind energy policy in Sweden, shows that the approach has several advantages, allowing continuous evaluation and providing important information for the redesign of policy instruments. There are also disadvantages associated with the approach, such as complexity, possible high cost and the requirement of qualified evaluators. Nevertheless, it is concluded that the information on the continuous performance of different policy instruments and their effects on the introduction and dissemination of new energy technologies, provided by this evaluation approach, is essential for an improved adaptation and implementation of energy and climate policy.

[1]  Lena Neij.  Methods of evaluating market transformation programmes: experience in Sweden , 2001 .

[2]  Michael S. Lund.  Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action , 1990 .

[3]  Lee J. Cronbach,et al.  Toward Reform of Program Evaluation: Aims, Methods, and Institutional Arrangements. , 1982 .

[4]  Michael Hill,et al.  Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice , 2002 .

[5]  R. Kemp,et al.  Environmental policy and technical change : a comparison of the technological impact of policy instruments , 1995 .

[6]  S. Winter,et al.  In search of useful theory of innovation , 1993 .

[7]  John Holmberg,et al.  Socio-ecological Indicators for Sustainability. , 1996 .

[8]  Lena Neij,et al.  An assessment of governmental wind power programmes in Sweden-using a systems approach , 2006 .

[9]  Ruud Smits,et al.  Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark , 2004 .

[10]  Evert Vedung,et al.  Evaluation of environmental policy instruments – a case study of the Finnish pulp & paper and chemical industries , 2002 .

[11]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the black box , 1983 .

[12]  D. Easton,et al.  A framework for political analysis , 1966 .

[13]  Lena Neij,et al.  Building Sustainable Energy Systems - Swedish Experience , 2001 .

[14]  Lena Neij,et al.  Dynamics of Energy Systems - Methods of analysing technology change , 1999 .

[15]  Carol H. Weiss.  Evaluation : methods for studying programs and policies , 1997 .

[16]  K. Arrow.  The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing , 1962 .

[17]  Charles Edquist.  Government Technology Procurement as an Instrument of Technology Policy , 1996 .

[18]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach , 1979 .

[19]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  National Systems of Innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning London: Pint , 1995 .

[20]  Michael Hill,et al.  The policy process in the modern state , 1997 .

[21]  Unfccc.  Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1997 .