Abstract
This paper provides a model-based macroeconomic assessment of First-Mover Advantage (FMA) in environmental technologies, in which a European sector becomes world leader and captures the global market for a particular technology. The E3MG model is used to assess a set of scenarios where the FMA is established in a range of renewable technologies. Although to some extent dependent on scenario assumptions, the model results show that FMA could provide a small but noticeable boost to European GDP (of some 0.5 %) and employment, which could go some way to countering possible losses in production from implementing ambitious climate policy. The impacts are found to be temporary in nature, but some of the sectors that benefit the most are also those that could be expected to lose out from higher energy prices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker T, Scrieciu SS (2010) Modelling low stabilization with E3MG: towards a “New Economics” approach to simulating energy-environment-economy system dynamics. Energy J 31:137–164
Barker T, Lofsnaes O, Pollitt H (2007) The ETM in E3ME43, Cambridge Econometrics working paper. http://94.76.226.154/Libraries/Downloadable_Files/ETM.sflb.ashx
Böhringer C, Löschel A, Moslener U, Rutherford TF (2009a) EU Climate Policy Up to 2020: an Economic Impact Assessment. Energy Econ 31:295–305
Böhringer C, Tol RSJ, Rutherford TF (2009b) The EU 20/20/2020 Targets: an Overview of the EMF22 Assessment. Energy Econ 31:268–273
Cambridge Econometrics and Ecorys (2011) Assessing the implementation and impact of green elements of member states’ national recovery plans. Final report for European Commission, DG Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/memberstate_policy/pdf/green_recovery_plans.pdf
Capros P, Van Regemorter D, Paroussos L, Karkatsoulis P (2012) The GEM-E3 model. IPTS Scientific and Technical report, Sevilla
Consensus Economics (2011) Consensus foraecast. Email edition, October 2011
Delbeke J, Klaassen G, Van Ierland T, Zapfel P (2010) The role of environmental economics in recent policy making at the European Commission. Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:24–43
Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276
European Commission (2008) 20 20 by 2020: Europe’s climate change opportunity. COM (2008) 30 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0030:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 23 Jan 2008
European Commission (2010) Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. COM (2010) 265 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0265:FIN:EN:PDF. Acessed 26 May 2010
European Commission (2010) EU Energy Trends to 2030. 2009 update. European Commission, DG Energy, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/trends_2030/index_en.htm
European Commission (2011) Statistical Annex of European Economy, Autumn 2011. DG ECFIN, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2011/pdf/2011-11-10-stat-annex_en.pdf
European Commission (2011a) A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. COM (2011) 112 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0112:FIN:EN:PDF. 8 Mar 2011
European Commission (2014) A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030, COM/2014/015 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Europe and Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015 )
Hendry D, Pagan FA, Sargan JD (1984) Dynamic specification. In: Griliches Z, Intriligator MD (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol II. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1023–1100
International Energy Agency (2010) World energy outlook. IEA, Paris. http://www.iea.org/weo/
Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54:164–174
Klaassen G, Nill J, Van Ierland T, Saveyn B, Vergote S (2012) Costs and benefits of reducing the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in 2020. Rev Bus Econ 57:157–178
Lee K, Pesaran MH, Pierse RG (1990) Aggregation Bias in Labour Demand Equations for the UK Economy. In: Barker T, Pesaran MH (eds) Disaggregation in Econometric Modelling. Routledge, London, pp 113–136
OECD (2011) Economic Outlook 89. OECD, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/oecdEconomicOutlook. May 2011
REN21 (2011) Renewable 2011 Global Status Report. Paris, REN21 Secretariat
Söderholm P, Klaassen G (2007) Wind power in Europe: a simultaneous innovation-diffusion model. Environ Resour Econ 36:163–190
Tol RSJ (2009) Intra- and extra-union flexibility in meeting the European Union’s emission reduction targets. Energy Policy 37:4329–4336
UNEP (2011) The emission Gap: Appendix 2. Detailed information about countries pledges. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 28 January 2011
UNEP (2011a) Bridging the emission gap: a UNEP synthesis report, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, November 2011
Watanabe C, Griffy-Brown C, Zhu B, Nagamatsu A (2002) Inter-firm technology spillover and a virtuous cycle between R&D, market growth, and price reduction: The case of photovoltaic power generation development in Japan. In: Grübler A, Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus WD (eds) Technological Change and the Environment. RFF Press, Washington, DC, pp 127–159
Acknowledgments
This paper reflects the personal opinion of the authors and in no way reflects the view of the European Commission on the results obtained. Funding received from the European Commission under Contract nr 070307/2013/654655/CLIMA.A4 is gratefully acknowledged. Comments from the reviewers are appreciated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Pollitt, H., Summerton, P. & Klaassen, G. A model-based assessment of first-mover advantage and climate policy. Environ Econ Policy Stud 17, 299–312 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-014-0098-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-014-0098-6