Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 16, Issue 8, pp 1687–1701 | Cite as

Laissez faire and the Clean Development Mechanism: determinants of project implementation in Indian states, 2003–2011

Original Paper

Abstract

India is the world’s second-largest host of projects implemented under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). There is, however, considerable variation in the distribution of CDM projects implemented across different Indian states. While a large body of the literature examines cross-national variation in the implementation of CDM projects, few studies have analyzed the determinants of sub-national variation in different national contexts. We theorize that given India’s laissez-faire approach to CDM project implementation the availability of profitable climate mitigation opportunities and the political stability are two factors that promote CDM project implementation. Using sub-national data collected from a variety of sources, we conduct systematic analysis that provides empirical support for a set of hypotheses regarding the effects of these variables on project implementation. First, we find that states with a lot of public electricity-generating capacity and industrial capital implement more CDM projects than other states. Additionally, project developers rarely propose CDM projects during election years as a result of high levels of political uncertainty associated with those years. Our findings show that India’s liberal approach prevents the central government from using the CDM to promote sustainable development in less developed states. In India and other host countries where coordinated national policies to maximize their gains from CDM projects is absent, there is a paucity of project implementation in states that need it the most.

Keywords

Climate policy International institutions Clean Development Mechanism India Sub-national variation 

Supplementary material

10098_2014_746_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (272 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (f 271 KB)

References

  1. Andonova LB, Mitchell RB (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics. Annu Rev Environ Res 35(1):255–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora DS, Busche S, Cowlin S, Engelmeier T, Jaritz H, Milbrandt A, Wang S (2010) Indian renewable energy status report: background report for DIREC 2010. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-6A20-48948.Google Scholar
  3. Bayer P, Urpelainen J, Wallace J (2013) Who uses the Clean Development Mechanism? An empirical analysis of projects in Chinese provinces. Glob Environ Chang 23(2):512–521Google Scholar
  4. Benecke G (2009) Varieties of carbon governance: taking stock of the local carbon market in India. J Environ Dev 18(4):346–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt PT, Williams JT, Fordham BO, Pollins B (2000) Dynamic modeling for persistent event-count time series. Am J Political Sci 44(4):823–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro P, Michaelowa A (2011) Would preferential access measures be sufficient to overcome current barriers to CDM projects in least developed countries? Clim Dev 3(2):123–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curnow P, Hodes G (2009) Implementing CDM projects: a guidebook to host Country legal issues. UNEP Risoe Centre, Roskilde, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Ménière Y (2008) The Clean Development Mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: an empirical study. Energy Policy 36(4):1273–1283Google Scholar
  9. Dinar A, Rahman SM, Larson DF, Ambrosi P (2011) Local actions, global impacts: International Cooperation and the CDM. Glob Environ Politics 11(4):108–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellerman DA, Buchner BK (2007) The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results. Rev Environ Econ Policy 1(1):66–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erlewein A, Nüsser M (2011) Offsetting greenhouse gas emissions in the Himalaya: Clean Development Dams in Himachal Pradesh, India. Mt Res Dev 31(4):293–304Google Scholar
  12. Fuhr H, Lederer M (2009) Varieties of carbon governance in newly industrializing Countries. J Environ Dev 18(4):327–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ganapati S, Liu L (2008) The Clean Development Mechanism in China and India: a comparative institutional analysis. Public Adm Dev 28:351–362Google Scholar
  14. Grubb M (2003) The economics of the Kyoto Protocol. World Econ 4(3):143–189Google Scholar
  15. Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests (2001) India: State of the Environment 2001. Joint Report with UNEP and TERI.Google Scholar
  16. Joseph KL (2010) The politics of power: electricity reform in India. Energy Policy 38(1):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. King G, Tomz M, Wittenberg J (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. Am J Political Sci 44(2):341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markandya A, Halsnaes K (2002) Climate change and sustainable development prospects for developing countries. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Mathy S, Hourcade J-C, de Gouvello C (2001) Clean Development Mechanism: leverage for development? Clim Policy 1(2):251–268Google Scholar
  20. Michaelowa A, Purohit P (2007) Additionality determination of Indian CDM projects: can Indian CDM project developers outwit the CDM Executive Board? Climate Strategies Discussion Paper CDM-1.Google Scholar
  21. Newell P (2009) Varieties of CDM governance: some reflections. J Environ Dev 18(4):425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popp D (2011) International technology transfer, climate change, and the Clean Development Mechanism. Rev Environ Econ Policy 5(1):131–152Google Scholar
  23. Schreurs MA (2008) From the bottom up: local and subnational climate change politics. J Environ Dev 17(4):343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schroeder M (2009) Varieties of carbon governance: utilizing the Clean Development Mechanism for Chinese priorities. J Environ Dev 18(4):371–394Google Scholar
  25. Shalini R (2003) Between cunning states and unaccountable institutions: social movements and rights of local communities to common property resources. WZB Discussion Paper Nr. SP IV 2003, p 502.Google Scholar
  26. Sirohi S (2007) CDM: is it a ‘win-win’ strategy for rural poverty alleviation in India? Clim Chang 84(1):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tongia R (2003) The political economy of India power sector reforms. Stanford University, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Working Paper 4.Google Scholar
  28. Transparency International (2005) India Corruption Study 2005. Centre for Media Studies, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  29. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57(2):307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science & Program in International and Area StudiesWashington University in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations