Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of Economic Theory for Bioenergy Policy Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Concepts and Instruments for a Rational Bioenergy Policy

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Energy ((LNEN,volume 55))

  • 430 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter “Implications of Economic Theory for Bioenergy Policy Design” develops the analytical framework which is used in Chap. 5 to derive recommendations for German bioenergy policy. First, neoclassical theory implications for bioenergy policy, as well as their limits, are discussed. To move towards more realistic theory-based policy recommendations, the analysis draws on the theory of second-best, information economics, the theory of economic order, and new institutional economics, and gives an outlook on ecological economics implications. For each of these theories, relevant findings are applied to bioenergy policy, leading to the derivation of theoretical guidelines for bioenergy policy design. It is demonstrated that a combination of theoretical approaches is necessary to generate recommendations which adequately reflect the complexity of the bioenergy policy problem. However, among the theories considered, new institutional economics approaches are found to be particularly fruitful. Here, the matrix of institutions which jointly influence allocation decisions by bioenergy actors is at the centre of the policy analysis. Among new institutional economics approaches, transaction cost and contract economics, the principal-agent approach, the theory of institutional change, and the public choice approach provide valuable insights for generating policy design recommendations in the presence of uncertainty, transaction costs, path dependencies and political feasibility constraints. Because of the advantages that an institutional perspective offers for the analysis of bioenergy policy, new institutional economics is chosen as the overall framework into which insights from other theories are integrated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of course, the institutional constraints on the implementation of a global instrument would be massive—as an instrumental alternative for cost-effective GHG mitigation, regional or national emissions taxes could be aligned with a globally negotiated tax rate; whereas regional emissions trading systems could be linked, so that emission permits could be traded across regional systems (Stavins 1997).

  2. 2.

    Some parts of Sect. 3.1.2 have been used in Purkus et al. (2015).

  3. 3.

    See Lehmann and Gawel (2013) for a review of studies which analyse this effect.

  4. 4.

    What constitutes an unresolvable constraint, meanwhile, can change with time—first-best instruments that are considered unfeasible due to high transaction costs of monitoring, for example, may become practicable with advances in monitoring technology (McCann 2013).

  5. 5.

    Some parts of this section have been used in Purkus et al. (2015).

  6. 6.

    In the environmental context, for example, methods for estimating option value and quasi-option value (in the presence of irreversible impacts) have been applied to decisions involving the conversion of natural land; these attempt to correct the expected net benefits of the planned (e.g. industrial) development for the loss of options the associated conversion would entail, as uncertain future benefits of natural land are foregone (Perman et al. 2003: 448ff.; Weikard 2003). However, given extremely high information requirements about outcomes, probabilities, or the prospect of gaining additional information about conservation benefits in the future, calculated option values are rarely formally taken into account in decision making, although they generally imply lower levels of conversion than would otherwise be the case (Perman et al. 2003: 459).

  7. 7.

    Recently, this neglect in mainstream economic theory has come under criticism in the wake of the global financial crisis (cf. Priddat and Kabalak 2013).

  8. 8.

    If any information or belief about probabilities is lacking, it is assumed that decision makers can at least apply the “principle of insufficient reason”, which involves the assignment of equal probabilities to mutually exclusive outcomes. Following this, decision makers should adopt the strategy that yields the pay-off with the greatest expected value (Perman et al. 2003: 461).

  9. 9.

    Another example of a decision rule which has been applied to environmental uncertainty is Shackle’s (1969) model, which replaces probabilities with a measure of surprise, and attempts to balance best case against worst case scenarios for possible courses of action (Wätzold 1998: 96ff.; Young 2001: 88ff.).

  10. 10.

    Some parts of this section have been used in Purkus et al. (2015)

  11. 11.

    GHG accounting methodology and environmental impacts would have to be verified externally—otherwise there would be a high risk that market actors would make use of asymmetric information advantages (see Sect. 3.5.3) to produce beneficial environmental balances. In that case, uncertainties about the social costs of bioenergy use would rest largely with the state.

  12. 12.

    As practiced, for example, in UK sustainability certification for bioelectricity (cf. DECC 2013).

  13. 13.

    Although, given the diversity of theoretical approaches that fall under NIE, the degree to which these forms of “strong” uncertainty (cf. Dequech 1997) and the bounded rationality assumption are incorporated into analyses differs (Dequech 2006).

  14. 14.

    Property rights encompass a bundle of rights, such as the right to use a good and draw income from it, the right to change and transform a good, or the right to transfer a good (Richter and Furubotn 2003: 90).

  15. 15.

    An early focus was placed on the governance of natural resources under common property regimes (Ostrom 1990), but the formation of a new institutional environmental or ecological economics framework is still a work in progress (Paavola and Adger 2005; Ménard 2011).

  16. 16.

    In the case of environmental pollution externalities, for example, individuals whose utility is negatively affected by pollution could offer emitters compensation for reducing emissions, or they could agree on a compensation for accepting some level of pollution. Independent of the initial distribution of property rights, the resulting level of emissions would be Pareto-efficient (Coase 1960).

  17. 17.

    For example, while tradable permit schemes for emissions deliver lower overall abatement costs (cf. Sect. 3.1.2), transaction costs can be comparatively high (e.g. Ofei-Mensah and Bennett 2013).

  18. 18.

    The principal-agent approach is another strand of NIE which makes major contributions to contract theory, focussing on problems which arise from information asymmetries between contracting parties (see Sect. 3.5.3).

  19. 19.

    Trust and shared preferences between contractual parties can reduce the scope for opportunism, in the same way as social connectedness through membership in a common community or network can (Coggan et al. 2013: 225).

  20. 20.

    Nevertheless, perennial, specialised energy crops result in higher asset specificity than, for example, maize, with multiple utilisation options, exemplifying the diversity of transactions involved even at one specific stage of the value chain.

  21. 21.

    Highlighting the importance of long-term political commitment, the concept shows strong parallels to Eucken’s “continuity of economic policy” principle (see Sect. 3.4.2).

  22. 22.

    Among the major types of uncertainty in bioenergy policies making (cf. Table 2.6), information asymmetries appear most relevant in the case of technology costs and primary production conditions. While adverse selection is discussed for technology governance and moral hazard for primary production choices, in practice both forms of asymmetric information problems are relevant in both cases, often showing some overlap (cf. Erlei et al. 1999: 166).

  23. 23.

    In North’s perspective, institutional change is regarded as the result of intentional efforts by humans to control their environment and reduce pervasive uncertainty (North 2005: 1ff.). A second major branch of theories on institutional change follows Hayek’s view (Hayek 1969) that institutions and order evolve spontaneously, as the unintentional product of human actions and interactions; whether or not this process leads to efficient outcomes, is the subject of some debate (cf. Leipold 1996; Brousseau et al. 2011). North’s perspective is adopted here due to its better applicability to problems of intentional policy design.

  24. 24.

    In this context, it seems important to note that the assumption of self-interestedness does not preclude behaviour which can be described as altruistic—an individual’s utility function may well include the welfare of other individuals as a component (Pappenheim 2001: 63).

  25. 25.

    Indeed, as Finon and Perez (2007) demonstrate, the choice of design parameters may cause the governance attributes of different renewable electricity support instruments to converge, even though instrument types such as feed-in tariffs, auctions and quotas with green certificate trading traditionally receive very different approval ratings by economists (e.g. Groscurth and Bode 2011; Frondel et al. 2013).

References

  • Abbott M (2001) Is the security of electricity supply a public good? Electr J 14(7):31–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acatech (ed) (2012) Die Energiewende finanzierbar gestalten. Effiziente Ordnungspolitik für das Energiesystem der Zukunft. Acatech—Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams P, Bows A, Gilbert P, Hammond J, Howard D, Lee R et al (2013) Understanding greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems. Supergen Bioenergy Hub, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Adar Z, Griffin JM (1976) Uncertainty and the choice of pollution control instruments. J Environ Econ Manag 3(3):178–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “Lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84(3):488–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambec S, Cohen MA, Elgie S, Lanoie P (2013) The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Rev Environ Econ Policy 7(1):2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anger N, Böhringer C, Lange A (2006) Differentiation of green taxes: a political-economy analysis for Germany. ZEW discussion paper no. 06-003. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1984) The economics of agency. Center for Research on Organizational Efficiency, Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur BW (1988) Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In: Arrow KJ, Anderson P (eds) The economy as an evolving complex system. Wiley, New York, pp 9–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur BW (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith D (1987) Interest groups, campaign contributions, and probabilistic voting. Public Choice 54(2):123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balks M (1995) Umweltpolitik aus Sicht der neuen Institutionenökonomik. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barker T, Junankar S, Pollitt H, Summerton P (2007) Carbon leakage from unilateral environmental tax reforms in Europe, 1995–2005. Energy Policy 35(12):6281–6292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batie SS (2008) Wicked problems and applied economics. Am J Agric Econ 90(5):1176–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batlle C, Pérez-Arriaga IJ, Zambrano-Barragán P (2012) Regulatory design for RES-E support mechanisms: learning curves, market structure, and burden-sharing. Energy Policy 41:212–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgärtner S, Becker C, Frank K, Müller B, Quaas M (2008) Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: the role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research. Ecol Econ 67(3):384–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental policy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1989/1996) Politischer Wettbewerb zwischen Interessengruppen. In Pies I (ed) Familie, Gesellschaft und Politik—die ökonomische Perspektive. Mohr, Tübingen, pp 185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckers T, Miksch J (2002) Die Allokation des Verkehrsmengenrisikos bei Betreibermodellen für Straßeninfrastruktur—Theoretische Grundlagen und Anwendung auf das A-Modell. Diskussionspapier 2002/10. Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennear L, Stavins R (2007) Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):111–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman L (2009) Addressing market power and industry restructuring. In: Glachant J-M, Leveque F (eds) Electricity reform in Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 65–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Berndes G, Hansson J (2007) Bioenergy expansion in the EU: cost-effective climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on imported fuels. Energy Policy 35(12):5965–5979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop RC (1978) Endangered species and uncertainty. The economics of a safe minimum standard. Am J Agric Econ 60:10–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bläsi A, Requate T (2010) Feed-in-tariffs for electricity from renewable energy resources to move down the learning curve? Public Financ Manag 10(2):213–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher A (2011) Abenteuer Altlasten: Vom Umgang mit Nichtwissen in Entscheidungsprozessen am Beispiel der Altlastensanierung. Dr. Phil. Dissertation. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle

    Google Scholar 

  • BMWi (2014) Ein Strommarkt für die Energiewende. Diskussionspapier des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (Grünbuch). Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm P (2008) Second best. In: Durlauf SN (ed) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, vol 7, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 379–384

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Alexeeva-Talebi V (2011) Unilateral climate policy and competitiveness: the implications of differential emission pricing. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere V-338-11. Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Rosendahl KE (2010a) Greening electricity more than necessary: on the excess cost of overlapping regulation in EU climate policy. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere V-326-10. Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Rosendahl K (2010b) Green promotes the dirtiest: on the interaction between black and green quotas in energy markets. J Regul Econ 37(3):316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun FG, Schmidt-Ehmcke J, Zloczysti P (2010) Innovative activity in wind and solar technology: empirical evidence on knowledge spillovers using patent data. DIW Discussion Papers 993. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Brousseau E, Garrouste P, Raynaud E (2011) Institutional changes: alternative theories and consequences for institutional design. J Econ Behav Organ 79(1–2):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruckner T, Bashmakov IA, Mulugetta Y, Chum H, de la Vega Navarro A, Edmonds J et al (2014) Energy systems. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 511–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JM (1980) Rent seeking and profit seeking. In: Buchanan JM, Tollison RD, Tullock G (eds) Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. Texas A&M Press, College Station, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan J, Tullock G (1962) The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Budzinski O (2000) Wirtschaftspolitische Implikationen evolutorischer Ordnungsökonomik. Das Beispiel ordnungskonformer ökologischer Wirtschaftspolitik. Metropolis, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundeskartellamt (2011) Sektoruntersuchung Kraftstoffe. Bundeskartellamt, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesnetzagentur, Bundeskartellamt (2013) Monitoringreport 2012. Bundesnetzagentur, Bundeskartellamt, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Canton J, Johannesson Lindén A (2010) Support schemes for renewable electricity in the EU. Economic Papers. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassel D, Kaiser C (2000) Euckens Prinzipien als Maxime der Wirtschaftspolitik: Zum Problem der Einhaltung wirtschaftspolitischer Grundsätze in der parlamentarischen Demokratie. In: Leipold H, Pies I (eds) Ordnungstheorie und Ordnungspolitik: Konzeptionen und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart, pp 83–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers RG, Quiggin J (1996) Non-point-source pollution regulation as a multi-task principal-agent problem. J Public Econ 59(1):95–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup SV (1952) Resource conservation: economics and policies. University of California Press, Cambridge University Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3(October 1960):1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coggan A, Whitten SM, Bennett J (2010) Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy. Ecol Econ 69(9):1777–1784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coggan A, Buitelaar E, Whitten S, Bennett J (2013) Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: who bears what and why? Ecol Econ 88:222–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COM (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. COM(2000) 1. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • COM (2005) Biomass action plan. COM(2005) 628 final. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • COM (2006) An EU strategy for biofuels. COM(2006) 34 final. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • COM (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off J Eur Union L 140(5.6.2009):16–62

    Google Scholar 

  • COM (2013) Report from the commission to the council and the European parliament on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 2008–2011. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Common M, Stagl S (2005) Ecological economics—an introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Cornwell L (1992) The 4P approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment 34(9):12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Daly HE, Bartholomew JA (1991) Goals, agenda, and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin P (1982) Pareto optimality of policy proposals with probabilistic voting. Public Choice 39(3):427–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin P, Nitzan S (1981) Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare maxima. J Public Econ 15(1):113–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin P, Mueller DC, Murrel P (1990) Electoral politics, interest groups, and the size of government. Econ Inq 28(4):682–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton P, Ockenfels A (2012) Economics and design of capacity markets for the power sector. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 36(2):113–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W (2008) N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys 8(2):389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlman CJ (1979) The problem of externality. J Law Econ 22(1):141–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly HE (2002) Ökologische Ökonomie: Konzepte, Analysen, Politik. Working Paper No. FS II 02-410. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly HE, Farley J (2004) Ecological economics. Principles and applications. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • David P (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75(2):332–337

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cara S, Vermont B (2011) Policy considerations for mandating agriculture in a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme: a comment. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 33(4):661–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Finetti B (1951) Recent suggestions for the reconciliation of the theories of probability. In: Neyman J (ed) Proceedings of the second Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. University of California Press, Berkely, Los Angeles, pp 217–226

    Google Scholar 

  • DECC (2013) Government Response to the consultation on proposals to enhance the sustainability criteria for the use of biomass feedstocks under the Renewables Obligation (RO). Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), London

    Google Scholar 

  • del Río P, Cerdá E (2014) The policy implications of the different interpretations of the cost-effectiveness of renewable electricity support. Energy Policy 64:364–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz H (1969) Information and efficiency: another viewpoint. J Law Econ 12(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dequech D (1997) Uncertainty in a strong sense: meaning and sources. Econ Iss 2(2):21–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Dequech D (2006) The new institutional economics and the theory of behaviour under uncertainty. J Econ Behav Organ 59(1):109–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewatripont M, Roland G (1995) The design of reform packages under uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 85(5):1207–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann J, Kemfert C, Neuhoff K, Schill W-P, Traber T (2012) Erneuerbare Energien: Quotenmodell keine Alternative zum EEG. DIW Wochenbericht 45/2012. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit AK (1996) The making of economic policy: a transaction-cost politics perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit AK, Nalebuff B (1993) Thinking strategically. The competitive edge in business, politics, and everyday life. Reissued. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Domanico F (2007) Concentration in the European electricity industry: the internal market as solution? Energy Policy 35(10):5064–5076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dovers SR, Norton TW, Handmer JW (2001) Ignorance, uncertainty and ecology: key themes. In: Handmer JW, Norton TW, Dovers SR (eds) Ecology, uncertainty and policy. Managing ecosystems for sustainability. Pearson Education, Harlow, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman M (1964) The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Eide E, Van den Bergh R (eds) (1996) Law and economics of the environment. Juridisk Forlag, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekins P, Barker T (2001) Carbon taxes and carbon emissions trading. J Econ Surv 15(3):325–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekins P, Salmons R (2007) An assessment of the impacts of ETR on the competitiveness of selected industrial sectors. In: Andersen MS, Barker T, Christie E, Ekins P, Gerald JF, Jilkova J et al (eds) Competitiveness effects of environmental tax reforms (COMETR). National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, pp 24–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Endres A (2013) Umweltökonomie, 4th edn. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Endres A, Finus M (1996) Zur Neuen Politischen Ökonomie der Umweltgesetzgebung—Umweltschutzinstrumente im politischen Prozeß. In: Gawel E (ed) Institutionelle Probleme der Umweltpolitik. Analytica Verlag, Berlin, pp 88–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Enquete-Kommission (1998) Abschlußbericht der Enquete-Kommission “Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt—Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen einer nachhaltig zukunftsverträglichen Entwicklung”. Konzept Nachhaltigkeit—Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. Drucksache 13/11200. Deutscher Bundestag 13. Wahlperiode, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlei M, Leschke M, Sauerland D (1999) Neue Institutionenökonomik. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Eucken W (1952/1990) Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik, 7th edn. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber M (2008) How to be an ecological economist. Ecol Econ 66(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO, UNDP, UNEP (2009) The United Nations collaborative programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. About REDD+. http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/102614/Default.aspx. Accessed 25 Oct 2013

  • Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Government of Germany (2010) National renewable energy action plan in accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Federal Government of Germany, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder S, Rutherford TF (1993) Unilateral CO2 reductions and carbon leakage: the consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. J Environ Econ Manag 25(2):162–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finon D, Perez Y (2007) The social efficiency of instruments of promotion of renewable energies: a transaction-cost perspective. Ecol Econ 62(1):77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer C (2008) Emissions pricing, spillovers, and public investment in environmentally friendly technologies. Energy Econ 30(2):487–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer C, Newell RG (2008) Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J Environ Econ Manag 55(2):142–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishelson G (1976) Emission control policies under uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 3:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxon TJ, Gross R, Chase A, Howes J, Arnall A, Anderson D (2005) UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures. Energy Policy 33(16):2123–2137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser R (2002) Moral hazard and risk management in agri-environmental policy. J Agric Econ 53(3):475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey BS (1992) Umweltökonomie. Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch M (2011) Marktversagen und Wirtschaftspolitik. Mikroökonomische Grundlagen staatlichen Handelns, 8th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Frondel M, Peters J (2007) Biodiesel: a new Oildorado? Energy Policy 35(3):1675–1684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frondel M, Schmidt CM (2006) Emissionshandel und Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz: Eine notwendige Koexistenz? RWI: Positionen 10/2006. Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), Essen

    Google Scholar 

  • Frondel M, Ritter N, Schmidt CM, Vance C (2010) Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: the German experience. Energy Policy 38(8):4048–4056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frondel M, Schmidt C, aus dem Moore N (2013) Marktwirtschaftliche Energiewende: Ein Wettbewerbsrahmen für die Stromversorgung mit alternativen Technologien. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 37(1):27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1991) A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 137–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (2003) Post-normal science. Internet encyclopaedia of ecological economics. International Society for Ecological Economics. http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2014

  • Gawel E (1992) Die mischinstrumentelle Strategie in der Umweltpolitik: Ökonomische Betrachtungen zu einem neuen Politikmuster. Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft 43(2):267–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E (1995a) Ökologisierung des Steuer- und Abgabensystems. Übergangsprobleme und umweltpolitische Implikationen. Hamburger Jahrbuch für Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik 40:171–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E (1995b) Zur Politischen Ökonomie von Umweltabgaben. Walter Eucken Institut Vorträge und Aufsätze 146. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E (1999) Umweltordnungsrecht—ökonomisch irrational? Die ökonomische Sicht. In: Gawel E, Lübbe-Wolff G (eds) Rationale Umweltpolitik—Rationales Umweltrecht: Konzepte, Kriterien und Grenzen rationaler Steuerung im Umweltschutz, 1st edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 237–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E, Hansjürgens B (2013) Projekt “Energiewende”: Schneckentempo und Zickzackkurs statt klarer Konzepte für die Systemtransformation? Wirtschaftsdienst 93(5):283–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E, Lübbe-Wolff G (1999) Rationale Umweltpolitik—Rationales Umweltrecht. Ein Editorial. In: Gawel E, Lübbe-Wolff G (eds) Rationale Umweltpolitik—Rationales Umweltrecht: Konzepte, Kriterien und Grenzen rationaler Steuerung im Umweltschutz, 1st edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawel E, Strunz S, Lehmann P (2014) A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix in the EU—how do emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact? Energy Policy 64:175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber J-D, Knoepfel P, Nahrath S, Varone F (2009) Institutional resource regimes: towards sustainability through the combination of property-rights theory and policy analysis. Ecol Econ 68(3):798–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerken L, Schick G (2000) Ordnungsökonomik und ökologisch-soziale Wirtschaftskonzepte als wechselseitige Herausforderung. In: Gerken L, Schick G (eds) Grüne Ordnungsökonomik: Eine Option moderner Wirtschaftspolitik? Metropolis, Marburg, pp 19–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard O (1992) Social decision making in the context of scientific controversies. The interplay of environmental issues, technological conventions and economic stakes. Glob Environ Chang 2(3):239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottstein M, Skillings SA (2012) Beyond capacity markets: delivering capability resources to Europe’s decarbonised power system. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), Florence, 10–12 May 2012. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Groscurth H, Bode S (2011) Investitionsanreize für erneuerbare Energien durch das “Mengen-Markt-Modell”. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 2011(11):26–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubb M, Ulph D (2002) Energy, the environment, and innovation. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 18(1):92–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas R, Resch G, Panzer C, Busch S, Ragwitz M, Held A (2011) Efficiency and effectiveness of promotion systems for electricity generation from renewable energy sources—lessons from EU countries. Energy 36(4):2186–2193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberer AF (1996) Umweltbezogene Informationsasymmetrien und transparenzschaffende Institutionen. Metropolis, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Häder M (1997) Umweltpolitische Instrumente und neue Institutionenökonomik. Gabler Verlag, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm W (2000) Konstanz der Wirtschaftspolitik—was sie bedeutet, und was sie nicht bedeutet. In: Külp B, Vanberg V (eds) Freiheit und Wettbewerbliche Ordnung. Haufe Verlag, Freiburg, pp 101–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansjürgens B (2000) Symbolische Umweltpolitik—Eine Erklärung aus Sicht der Neuen Politischen Ökonomie. In: Hansjürgens B, Lübbe-Wolff G (eds) Symbolische Umweltpolitik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 144–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1937) Economics and knowledge. Economica IV:33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Amn Econ Rev 35(4): 519–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1945/2005) The road to serfdom. The condensed version as it appeared in the April 1945 edition of Reader’s Digest. The Institute of Economic Affairs, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1961/2007) Die Theorie komplexer Phänomene. In Vanberg V (ed) Wirtschaftstheorie und Wissen. Aufsätze zur Erkenntnis- und Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 188–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1967/2003) Rechtsordnung und Handelnsordnung. In Streit ME (ed) Rechtsordnung und Handelsordnung. Aufsätze zur Ordnungsökonomik. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1968/2002) Competition as a discovery procedure. Q J Austrian Econ 5(3): 9–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1968a) Der Wettbewerb als Entdeckungsverfahren. Kieler Vorträge Neue Folge Nr. 54. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1968b) The confusion of language in political thought. IEA Occasional Paper 20. Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1969) Die Ergebnisse menschlichen Handelns, aber nicht menschlichen Entwurfs. In: Hayek FA (ed) Freiburger Studien. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 97–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiner RA (1983) The origin of predictable behavior. Am Econ Rev 73(4):560–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm D (2010) Government failure, rent-seeking, and capture: the design of climate change policy. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 26(2):182–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke JM (2005) Biokraftstoffe—Eine weltwirtschaftliche Perspektive. Kieler Arbeitspapier Nr. 1236. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke JM, Klepper G (2006) Biokraftstoffe: Königsweg für Klimaschutz, profitable Landwirtschaft und sichere Energieversorgung? Kieler Diskussionsbeiträge 427. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke JM, Klepper G, Schmitz N (2003) Tax exemption for biofuels in Germany: is bio-ethanol really an option for climate policy? Kiel Working Paper No. 1184. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermeling C, Wölfing N (2011) Energiepolitische Aspekte der Bioenergienutzung: Nutzungskonkurrenz, Klimaschutz, politische Förderung. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoel M (1991) Global environment problems: the effects of unilateral actions taken by one country. J Environ Econ Manag 20(1):55–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes Hallett AJ (1989) Econometrics and the theory of economic policy: the Tinbergen-Theil contributions 40 years on. Oxf Econ Pap 41(1):189–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikkatai S (2013) Towards the establishment of a payments for ecosystem services policy framework. In: Managi S (ed) The economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Routledge explorations in environmental economics. Routledge, London, pp 111–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin T, Klein M, Perry GE, Thobani M (1997) Dealing with public risk in private infrastructure: an overview. In: Irwin T, Klein M, Perry GE, Thobani M (eds) Dealing with public risk in private infrastructure. World Bank Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Viewpoints. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Isermeyer F, Zimmer Y (2006) Thesen zur Bioenergie-Politik in Deutschland. Arbeitsberichte des Bereichs Agrarökonomie 02/2006. Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (FAL), Institut für Betriebswirtschaft, Braunschweig

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson T (2012) Communicating trade-offs amid controversial Science: decision support for climate policy. Ecol Econ 77:74–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson T, Perrings C (2012) Precaution and proportionality in the management of global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 22(1):161–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson S, Lauber, V (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34(3):256–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby HD, Ellerman AD (2004) The safety valve and climate policy. Energy Policy 32(4):481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54(2–3):164–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jägemann C (2014) A note on the inefficiency of technology- and region-specific renewable energy support: the German case. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 38(4):235–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakubowski P, Tegner H, Kotte S (1997) Strategien umweltpolitischer Zielfindung: Eine ökonomische Perspektive. LIT, Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkuhl M, Edenhofer O, Lessmann K (2012) Learning or lock-in: optimal technology policies to support mitigation. Resour Energy Econ 34(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkuhl M, Edenhofer O, Lessmann K (2013) Renewable energy subsidies: second-best policy or fatal aberration for mitigation? Resour Energy Econ 35(3):217–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay A, Ackrill R (2012) Governing the transition to a biofuels economy in the US and EU: accommodating value conflicts, implementing uncertainty. Policy Soc 31(4):295–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Tech Anal Strat Manag 10(2):175–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane N, Revesz R, Stavins R (1998) The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harv Environ Law Rev 22:313–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerf M, Gray RD, Irwin T, Levesque C, Taylor RR (1998) Concessions for infrastructure. World Bank Technical Paper No. 399. World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes JM (1921) A treatise on probability. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindermann G, Obersteiner M, Sohngen B, Sathaye J, Andrasko K, Rametsteiner E et al (2008) Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(30):10302–10307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirstein R (2003) Ökonomische Analyse des Rechts. Discussion Paper 2003-06. Center for the Study of Law and Economics, University of Saarland, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiwit D, Voigt S (1995) Überlegungen zum institutionellen Wandel unter Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses interner und externer Institutionen. ORDO Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 46:117–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein A, Merkel E, Pfluger B, Held A, Ragwitz M, Resch G et al (2010) Evaluation of different feed-in tariff design options—best practice paper for the International Feed-In Cooperation. Energy Economics Group, Fraunhofer Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Vienna, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Klepper G (2010) Integration der Bioenergie in ein nachhaltiges Energiekonzept: Schlussfolgerungen aus dem NaRoLaProjekt. In:Presentation held at Abschlussworkshop des NaRoLa-Projekts: Nachwachsende Rohstoffe und Landnutzung: Integration der Bioenergie in ein nachhaltiges Energiekonzept, Berlin, 11 March 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Klessmann C, Nabe C, Burges K (2008) Pros and cons of exposing renewables to electricity market risks—a comparison of the market integration approaches in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Energy Policy 36(10):3646–3661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhn J (2013) What economists can know. In: Priddat B, Kabalak A (eds) Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für die ökonomische Theorie. Metropolis, Marburg, pp 11–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopmann A, Kretschmer B, Lange M (2009) Effiziente Nutzung von Biomasse durch einen globalen Kohlenstoffpreis. Empfehlungen für eine koordinierte Bioenergiepolitik. Kiel Policy Brief Nr. 14. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger AO (1974) The political economy of the rent-seeking society. Am Econ Rev 64:291–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla K, Krause R (2011) Transaction costs and environmental policy: an assessment framework and literature review. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 4(3–4):261–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kverndokk S, Rosendahl KE (2007) Climate policies and learning by doing: impacts and timing of technology subsidies. Resour Energy Econ 29(1):58–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kverndokk S, Rosendahl KE (2013) Effects of transport regulation on the oil market: does market power matter? Scand J Econ 115(3):662–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kydland FE, Prescott EC (1977) Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans. J Polit Econ 85(3):473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffont J-J, Tirole J (1993) A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange M (2011) The GHG balance of biofuels taking into account land use change. Energy Policy 39(5):2373–2385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois R (1986) Rationality, institutions, and explanation. In: Langlois R (ed) Economics as a process: essays in the new institutional economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 225–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Langniß O (2002) Transaction cost economics of regulations to foster renewable energy sources in the electricity sector. Paper presented at European Network for Energy Economic Research (ENER) Forum 3. Successfully promoting renewable energy sources in Europe. 6–7 June 2002, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebel L, Grothmann T, Siebenhüner B (2010) The role of social learning in adaptiveness: insights from water management. Int Environ Agreements Polit Law Econ 10(4):333–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P (2012) Justifying a policy mix for pollution control: a review of economic literature. J Econ Surv 26(1):71–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P (2013) Supplementing an emissions tax by a feed-in tariff for renewable electricity to address learning spillovers. Energy Policy 61:635–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P, Gawel E (2013) Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme? Energy Policy 52:597–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P, Creutzig F, Ehlers M-H, Friedrichsen N, Heuson C, Hirth L et al (2012) Carbon lock-out: advancing renewable energy policy in europe. Energies 5(2):323–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann P, Brandt R, Gawel E, Heim S, Korte K, Löschel A et al (2015) Braucht Deutschland jetzt Kapazitätszahlungen für eine gesicherte Stromversorgung? Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 65(1/2):26–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipold H (1996) Zur Pfadabhängigkeit der institutionellen Entwicklung. Erklärungsansätze des Wandels von Ordnungen. In: Cassel D (ed) Enstehung und Wettbewerb von Systemen. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, pp 93–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm Rev 19(2):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CE (1979) Still muddling, not yet through. Public Adm Rev 39(6):517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey RG, Lancaster K (1956) The general theory of second best. Rev Econ Stud 24(1):11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loasby BJ (1976) Choice, complexity and ignorance: an enquiry into economic theory and the practice of decision-making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckenbach H (2000) Theoretische Grundlagen der Wirtschaftspolitik, 2nd edn. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Luks F, Siebenhüner B (2007) Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecol Econ 63:418–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macneil IR (1974) The many futures of contracts. South Calif Law Rev 47:691–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovits RS (2008) Two distortion-analysis approaches to economic-efficiency analysis: a third-best-economically-efficient response to the general theory of second best. Law and economics research paper no. 132. University of Texas Law School, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthes FC (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions trading and complementary policies. Developing a smart mix for ambitious climate policies. Report commissioned by German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Öko-Institut, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann L (2013) Transaction costs and environmental policy design. Ecol Econ 88:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick RE, Tollison RD (1981) Politicians, legislation and the economy: an inquiry into the interest-group theory of government. Martinus-Nijhoff, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McKibbin W, Wilcoxen P (2002) The role of economics in climate change policy. J Econ Perspect 16(2):107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade JE (1955) Trade and welfare. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Menanteau P, Finon D, Lamy ML (2003) Prices versus quantities: choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy. Energy Policy 31(8):799–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ménard C (2011) A new institutional economics perspective on environmental issues. Environ Innov Soc Transit 1(1):115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ménard C, Shirley MM (2005) Introduction. In: Ménard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf GE (2014) The economics of energy security. Ann Rev Resour Econ 6(1):155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis P (1996) Ökonomische Instrumente in der Umweltpolitik. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Physika-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller GJ (2005) Solutions to principal-agent problems in firms. In: Ménard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 349–370

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C, Bauknecht D, Connor PM (2006) Effectiveness through risk reduction: a comparison of the renewable obligation in England and Wales and the feed-in system in Germany. Energy Policy 34(3):297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monopolkommission (2011) Sondergutachten 59: Energie 2011: Wettbewerbsentwicklung mit Licht und Schatten: Sondergutachten der Monopolkommission gemäß § 62 Abs 1 EnWG. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller DC (1989) Public choice II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray BC, Lubowski R, Sohngen B (2009) Including international forest carbon incentives in climate policy: understanding the economics. Nicholas Institute Report NI R 09-03. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Muth JF (1961) Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica 29(3):315–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naumann K, Oehmichen K, Zeymer M, Müller-Langer F, Scheftelowitz M, Adler P et al (2014) DBFZ Report Nr 11: Monitoring Biokraftstoffsektor. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhoff K (2005) Large-scale deployment of renewables for electricity generation. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 21(1):88–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell RG (2010) The role of markets and policies in delivering innovation for climate change mitigation. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 26(2):253–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45(2):416–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen WA (1971/1994) Bureaucracy and public economics. Elgar, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Noailly J, Shestalova V (2013) Knowledge spillovers from renewable energy technologies. Lessons from patent citations. CPB Discussion Paper 262. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1993) Reflections on the economics of climate change. J Econ Perspect 7(4):11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North DC (1990a) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • North DC (1990b) A transaction cost theory of politics. J Theor Polit 2(4):355–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North DC (1995) Five propositions about institutional change. In: Knight J, Sened I (eds) Explaining social institutions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 15–26

    Google Scholar 

  • North DC (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Noth M (1994) Regulierung bei asymmetrischer Informationsverteilung. Gabler Verlag, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nusser M, Sheridan P, Walz R, Wydra S, Seydel P (2007) Makroökonomische Effekte von nachwachsenden Rohstoffen. Agrarwirtschaft—Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Marktforschung und Agrarpolitik (Ger JAgric Econ) 56(5/6):238–248

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll GP, Rizzo MJ (1996) The economics of time and ignorance. Reissued. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates WE, Portney PR (2001) The political economy of environmental policy. RFF discussion paper 01–55. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberender P, Christl C (2000) Walter Euckens Ordnungstheorie—eine Vorläuferin der Neuen Institutionenökonomik? In: Külp B, Vanberg V (eds) Freiheit und Wettbewerbliche Ordnung. Haufe Verlag, Freiburg, pp 523–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofei-Mensah A, Bennett J (2013) Transaction costs of alternative greenhouse gas policies in the Australian transport energy sector. Ecol Econ 88:214–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Orchard L, Stretton H (1997) Critical survey: public choice. Camb J Econ 21:409–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oren S (2003) Ensuring generation adequacy in competitive electricity markets. University of California Energy Institute—Energy Policy & Economics, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterburg B, Nieberg H, Rüter S, Isermeyer F, Haenel H-D, Hahne J et al (2009) Erfassung, Bewertung und Minderung von Treibhausgasemissionen des deutschen Agrar- und Ernährungssektors. Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarökonomie 03/2009. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTi), Braunschweig

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ozanne A, Hogan T, Colman D (2001) Moral hazard, risk aversion and compliance monitoring and agri-environmental policy. Eur Rev Agric Econ 28(3):329–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J (2007) Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol Econ 63(1):93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola J, Adger WN (2005) Institutional ecological economics. Ecol Econ 53(3):353–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl T (2001) Ordnungsökonomische Ansätze in der Umweltpolitik. Metropolis, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahle M, Tietjen O, Joas F, Knopf B (2014) EE Förderinstrumente & Risiken: Eine ökonomische Aufarbeitung der Debatte zur EEG Reform. Diskussionspapier. Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK), Potsdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappenheim R (2001) Neue Institutionenökonomik und politische Institutionen. Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt K, Patel P (1988) The international distribution and determinants of technological activities. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 4(4):35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW (1996) The social costs of climate change: greenhouse damage and the benefits of control. In Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF (eds) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge University Press for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, pp 179–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Perman R, Ma Y, McGilvray J (eds) (2003) Natural resource and environmental economics. Pearson, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C (1991) Reserved rationality and the precautionary principle: technological change, time and uncertainty in environmental decision making. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 153–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Picot A, Dietl H (1993) Neue Institutionenökonomie und Recht (New Institutional Economics and Law). In: Ott C, Schäfer H-B (eds) Ökonomische Analyse des Unternehmensrechts. Beiträge zum 3. Travemünder Symposium zur Ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 306–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou AC (1920) The economics of welfare. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizer WA (1999) The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Resour Energy Econ 21(3–4):255–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizer WA (2002) Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J Public Econ 85(3):409–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polinsky AM, Shavell S (2008) Law and economics. In: Durlauf SN (ed) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, vol 5, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 20–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Leimbach M, Knopf B, Beringer T, Bauer N et al (2011) On sustainability of bioenergy production: integrating co-emissions from agricultural intensification. Biomass Bioenergy 12(35):4770–4780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4):97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priddat B, Kabalak A (eds) (2013) Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für die ökonomische Theorie. Metropolis, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Purkus A, Röder M, Gawel E, Thrän D, Thornley P (2015) Handling uncertainty in bioenergy policy design—a case study analysis of UK and German bioelectricity policy instruments. Biomass Bioenergy 79:64–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pütz T (1979) Grundlagen der theoretischen Wirtschaftspolitik, 4th edn. Fischer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Rader NA, Norgaard RB (1996) Efficiency and sustainability in restructured electricity markets: the renewables portfolio standard. Electr J 9(6):37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey FP (1931) Truth and probability. In: Braithwaite BR (ed) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. Harcourt, Brace and Co., Kegan Paul, New York, London, pp 156–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter R, Furubotn EG (2003) Neue Institutionenökonomik. Eine Einführung und kritische Würdigung, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringel M (2003) Liberalising European electricity markets: opportunities and risks for a sustainable power sector. Renew Sust Energy Rev 7(6):485–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert N, Stenger A (2013) Can payments solve the problem of undersupply of ecosystem services? Forest Policy Econ 35:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MJ, Spence M (1976) Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty. J Public Econ 1976(5):193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Røpke I (2005) Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. Ecol Econ 55(2):262–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (2011) Verantwortung in Europa wahrnehmen. Jahresgutachten 2011/12. Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheftelowitz M, Thrän D, Beil M, Peters W, Deumelandt P, Daniel-Gromke J et al (2014) Vorbereitung und Begleitung der Erstellung des Erfahrungsberichts 2014 gemäß § 65 EEG im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie. Vorhaben IIa: Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse. Zwischenbericht. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung—UFZ, Bosch & Partner, Privates Institut für Nachhaltige Landbewirtschaftung (INL), Fraunhofer-Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), Leipzig, Berlin, Halle, Kassel

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee R (1998) Greenhouse policy architecture and institutions. In: Nordhaus WD (ed) Economics and policy issues in climate change. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 137–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider F, Volkert J (1999) No chance for incentive-oriented environmental policies in representative democracies? A public choice analysis. Ecol Econ 31(1):123–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schotter A (1986) The evolution of rules. In: Langlois R (ed) Economics as a process: essays in the new institutional economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 117–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher A (1994) Unvollkommene Information in der neoklassischen Informationsökonomik und im evolutionsökonomischen Ansatz. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz K-A (2002) Vertrauensschutz als Verfassungsprinzip. Eine Analyse des nationalen Rechts, des Gemeinschaftsrechts und der Beziehungen zwischen beiden Rechtskreisen. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackle GLS (1969) Decision, order and time in human affairs, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijm J, Lehmann P, Gawel E, Chewpreecha U, Pollit H, Strunz S (2014) EU climate and energy policy in 2030: how many targets and instruments are necessary? UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2014. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1976) From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Kastelein TJ, Kuipers SK, Nijenhuis WA, Wagenaar GR (eds) 25 years of economic theory. H. E. Stenfert Kroese bv, Leiden, pp 65–86

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sinn H-W (2008) Das grüne Paradoxon—Plädoyer für eine illusionsfreie Klimapolitik. Econ, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Springmann J-P (2005) Die Förderung erneuerbarer Energien in der Stromerzeugung auf dem ordnungspolitischen Prüfstand. TUC Working Papers NR. 03. Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal, Clausthal

    Google Scholar 

  • SRU (2007) Climate change mitigation by biomass. Special report. German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavins RN (1996) Correlated uncertainty and policy instrument choice. J Environ Econ Manag 30(2):218–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins RN (1997) Policy instruments for climate change: how can national governments address a global problem? Discussion Paper 97-11 prepared for The University of Chicago Legal Forum. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Stehfest E, Ros J, Bouwman L (2010) Indirect effects of biofuels: intensification of agricultural production. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler GJ (1961) The economics of information. J Polit Econ 69(3):213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler GJ (1971) The theory of economic regulation. Bell J Econ Manag Sci 2(1):3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz JE (1975) The theory of “screening”, education, and the distribution of income. Am Econ Rev 65(3):283–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz JE (2008) Principal and agent (ii). In: Durlauf SN (ed) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, vol 6, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 637–644

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A, Mayer S (2004) Confronting risk with precaution: a multi-criteria mapping of genetically modified crops. In: Getzner M, Spash C, Stagl S (eds) Alternatives for valuing nature. Routledge, London, pp 159–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Streit ME (2005) Theorie der Wirtschaftspolitik, 6th edn. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Streit ME (2010) Interdisziplinäre Aspekte der Ordnungsökonomik. ORDO Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 61:115–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Streit ME, Wohlgemuth M (2000) Walter Eucken und Friedrich A. von Hayek: Initiatoren der Ordnungsökonomik. In: Külp B, Vanberg V (eds) Freiheit und Wettbewerbliche Ordnung. Haufe Verlag, Freiburg, pp 461–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Svetlova E, van Elst H (2013) How is non-knowledge represented in economic theory? In: Priddat B, Kabalak A (eds) Ungewissheit als Herausforderung für die ökonomische Theorie. Metropolis, Marburg, pp 41–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Thöne M (2000) Subventionen in der Umweltpolitik—Zwischen institutioneller Rechtfertigung und EU-Beihilfenkontrolle. In: Bizer K, Linscheidt B, Truger A (eds) Staatshandeln im Umweltschutz: Perspektiven einer institutionellen Umweltökonomik. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin, pp 253–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrän D, Billig E, Persson T, Svensson M, Daniel-Gromke J, Ponitka J et al (2014) Biomethane—status and factors affecting market development and trade. Joint Study on behalf of IEA Bioenergy Task 40 and Task 37. IEA Bioenergy

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen J (1952) On the theory of economic policy. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollison RD (1982) Rent seeking: a survey. Kyklos 35(4):575–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullock G (1967) Toward a mathematics of politics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock G (2008) Public choice. In: Durlauf SN (ed) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, vol 6, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 722–727

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30(4):317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upham P, Riesch H, Tomei J, Thornley P (2011) The sustainability of forestry biomass supply for EU bioenergy: a post-normal approach to environmental risk and uncertainty. Environ Sci Pol 14(5):510–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem A, Gillingham K, Sweeney J (2008) Learning-by-doing and the optimal solar policy in California. Energy Journal 29(3):131–151

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh JCJM (2007) Evolutionary economics and environmental policy. Survival of the greenest. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Suntum U, Böhm T, Oelgemöller J, Ilgmann C (2011) Walter Eucken’s principles of economic policy today. CAWN Discussion Paper No. 49. Centrum für angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung Münster (CAWM), Münster

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2005) Institutions and the environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Vazquez M, Hallack M (2015) Interaction between gas and power market designs. Util Policy 33:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachalam L (2007) Environmental economics and ecological economics: where they can converge? Ecol Econ 61(2–3):550–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viner J (1950) The customs union issue. Carnegie Endowment, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Voigt S (2002) Institutionenökonomik. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mises L (1929) Kritik des Interventionismus. Untersuchungen zur Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsideologie der Gegenwart. Fischer, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner M (2004) The Porter hypothesis revisited: a literature review of theoretical models and empirical tests. Centre for Sustainability Management, Universität Lüneburg, Lüneburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Wätzold F (1998) Umweltökonomische Konzeptionen bei ökologischer Unsicherheit. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wätzold F (2000) Efficiency and applicability of economic concepts dealing with environmental risk and ignorance. Ecol Econ 33(2):299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBA (2007) Nutzung von Biomasse zur Energiegewinnung—Empfehlungen an die Politik. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Agrarpolitik beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (WBA), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner G (1996) Zur Pathologie wirtschaftspolitischer Lenkung: Eine neue Betrachtungsweise. In: Priddat BP, Wegner G (eds) Zwischen Evolution und Institution: Neue Ansätze in der ökonomischen Theorie. Metropolis, Marburg, pp 367–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei S-J (1997) Gradualism versus Big Bang: speed and sustainability of reforms. Can J Econ 30(4b):1234–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weikard H-P (2003) On the quasi-option value of biodiversity and conservation. In: Wesseler J, Weikard H-P, Weaver RD (eds) Risk and uncertainty in environmental and natural resource economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 23–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimann J (2008) Die Klimapolitik-Katastrophe. Deutschland im Dunkel der Energiesparlampe. Metropolis, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimann J (2009) Königswege und Sackgassen der Klimapolitik. In: Beckenbach F, Leipert C, Meran G, Nutzinger HG, Weimann J, Witt U (eds) Diskurs Klimapolitik. Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik Band 6. Metropolis, Marburg, pp 213–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast BR (1993) Constitutions as governance structures: the political foundations of secure markets. J Inst Theor Econ 149(1):286–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41(4):477–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies, analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1979) Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. J Law Econ 22(2):233–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1981) The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Sociol 87(3):548–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1996) The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1999) Public and private bureaucracies: a transaction cost economics perspective. J Law Econ Org 15(1):306–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit 38:595–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (2005) Transaction cost economics. In: Ménard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–65

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward RT, Bishop RC (1997) How to decide when experts disagree: uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Econ 73(4):492–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2(2):111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yano Y, Blandford D (2011) Agri-environmental policy and moral hazard under multiple sources of uncertainty. Eur Rev Agric Econ 38(1):141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young RA (2001) Uncertainty and the environment. Implications for decision making and environmental policy. Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Hochman G, Rajagopal D (2010) Indirect land use change: a second-best solution to a first-class problem. AgBioforum 13(4):382–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwart GJ (2009) European natural gas markets: resource constraints and market power. Energy J 30:151–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

    Alexandra Purkus

Authors
  1. Alexandra Purkus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Purkus, A. (2016). Implications of Economic Theory for Bioenergy Policy Design. In: Concepts and Instruments for a Rational Bioenergy Policy. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 55. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31135-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31135-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31134-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31135-7

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation