External sources of clean technology: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism

Abstract

New technology is fundamental to sustainable development. However, inventors from industrialized countries often refuse technology transfer because they worry about reverse-engineering. When can clean technology transfer succeed? We develop a formal model of the political economy of North-South technology transfer. According to the model, technology transfer is possible if (i) the technology in focus has limited global commercial potential or (ii) the host developing country does not have the capacity to absorb new technologies for commercial use. If both conditions fail, inventors from industrialized countries worry about the adverse competitiveness effects of reverse-engineering, so technology transfer fails. Data analysis of technology transfer in 4,894 projects implemented under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism during the 2004-2010 period provides evidence in support of the model. * This paper was written during a research stay funded by an ERP fellowship of the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. Patrick Bayer gratefully acknowledges this generous funding and is thankful for the hospitality of Columbia University. We thank Christopher Marcoux for help with data collection and management. We also thank Thomas Hale, Richard Perkins, Eri Saikawa, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous draft.

The influence of corporate social responsibility on air pollution: Analysis of environmental regulation and eco‐innovation effects

“…This result is consistent with the social impact hypothesis (Preston & O'Bannon, ), and is in line with several previous empirical studies (Carrillo‐Hermosilla et al, ) because SRFIRM has a positive effect on ECOIN and, as shown above, eco‐innovations affect EXPO. The negative impact of eco‐innovations on exposure to pollution can be explained because the specific knowledge and innovation output of these eco‐innovations are transferred faster to countries and societies and reduce the level of pollution (Bayer & Urpelainen, ). More specifically, the presence of socially responsible firms may help reduce a country's air pollution (Betts, ; Carrión‐Flores & Innes, ).…”

“…The negative impact of eco-innovations on exposure to pollution can be explained because the specific knowledge and innovation output of these eco-innovations are transferred faster to countries and societies and reduce the level of pollution (Bayer & Urpelainen, 2013).…”

“…As Nidumolu, Prahalad, and Rangaswami (2009) and reputation, reduction in costs of use, improvement in process efficiency and increased market share and sales. External benefits pertain principally to cross-border transferability of eco-innovation and its outcomes, which is key to addressing environmental problems (Bayer & Urpelainen, 2013), social improvements and environmental improvements.…”

The Political Economy of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Adoption

“…Given that CCS is now viewed as one method of reducing greenhouse gases and addressing the problem of global climate change, it may be necessary to transfer CCS technology from countries with high levels of company R&D capacity to those with low levels. However, companies may be reluctant to allow such transfers to take place due to concerns regarding potential loss of competitive advantage in the future (Bayer and Urpelainen 2013). Until these concerns can be resolved successfully, countries will continue relying on technological innovation generated by domestic companies and experiencing constraints on CCS technology development and adoption identified in our research.…”

Leveraging private capital for climate mitigation: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism

“…If the advantage is small, then institutions for bilateral implementation are optimal. After all, bilateral implementation also has benefits, such as increased technology transfer (Bayer and Urpelainen, 2013) and the possibility of external capacity building. While our model does not emphasize these benefits, their presence is important because otherwise unilateral implementation would dominate bilateral implementation by definition.…”