Effect of government actions on technological innovation for SO2 control.

The relationship between government actions and innovation in environmental control technology is important for the design of cost-effective policies to achieve environmental goals. This paper examines such relationships for the case of sulfur dioxide control technology for U.S. coal-fired power plants. The study employs several complementary research methods, including analyses of key government actions, technology patenting activity, technology performance and cost trends, knowledge transfer activities, and expert elicitations. Our results indicate that government regulation appears to be a greater stimulus to inventive activity than government-sponsored research support alone, and that the anticipation of regulation also spurs inventive activity. Regulatory stringency focuses this activity along particular technical pathways and is a key factor in creating markets for environmental technologies. We also find that with greater technology adoption, both new and existing systems experience notable efficiency improvements and capital cost reductions. The important role of government in fostering knowledge transfer via technical conferences and other measures is also seen as an important factor in promoting environmental technology innovation.

[1]  Enrico Santarelli,et al.  Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators: the Italian experience , 1996 .

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

[3]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  Technological strategies of telecommunications equipment manufacturers: A patent analysis , 1994 .

[4]  Lynne Page Snyder.  "The death-dealing smog over Donora, Pennsylvania": Industrial air pollution, public health, and federal policy, 1915-1963 , 1994 .

[5]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Experience Curves for Environmental Technology and Their Relationship to Government Actions , 2003 .

[6]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Empirical studies of innovation and market structure , 1989 .

[7]  H. N. Soud,et al.  FGD installations on coal-fired plants , 1994 .

[8]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  New models for FGD performance, cost and hazardous air pollutant removal , 1995 .

[9]  Melissa M. Appleyard,et al.  HOW DOES KNOWLEDGE FLOW? INTERFIRM PATTERNS IN THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY , 1996 .

[10]  Leonard Gilroy,et al.  Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Market Effects under the Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program. , 1998, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[11]  Nathan,et al.  The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies , 1993 .

[12]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[13]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  Integrated Environmental Control Modeling of Coal-Fired Power Systems , 1997 .

[14]  Margaret R. Taylor.  The influence of government actions on innovative activities in the development of environmental technologies to control sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary sources , 2001 .

[15]  P Ekins,et al.  Environmental policy and technical change: a comparison of the technological impact of policy instruments. , 1999 .

[16]  L. Argote.  Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge , 1999 .

[17]  Paul Stoneman,et al.  Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change , 1995 .

[18]  M. E. Beall.  U.S. patent and trademark office , 1997 .

[19]  N. Rosenberg.  The Direction of Technological Change: Inducement Mechanisms and Focusing Devices , 1969, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

[20]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1943 .

[21]  Judy C. Shetler,et al.  Building Cooperation in a Competitive Industry: Sematech and the Semiconductor Industry , 1995 .

[22]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[23]  Nicholas A. Ashford,et al.  Using Regulation to Change the Market for Innovation , 1985 .