TY - JOUR
T1 - International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies
T2 - The effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany
AU - Popp, David
N1 - Funding Information:
The author thanks Skip Laitner, Fiona Murray, participants at the 2004 APPAM Fall conference, two anonymous referees and the Associate Editor for helpful comments, Neelaskhi Medhi, Miki Ouchi, Jacob Brower and Yonghong Wu for excellent research assistance, and Eric Welch for help obtaining environmental regulation data from Japan. The author is responsible for any remaining errors. Financial support provided by DOE grant DE-FG02-ER63467.
PY - 2006/1
Y1 - 2006/1
N2 - Using patent data from the United States, Japan, and Germany, this paper examines both innovation and diffusion of air pollution control equipment. Whereas the United States was an early adopter of stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards, both Japan and Germany introduced stringent nitrogen dioxide (NOX) standards much earlier than the US. Nonetheless, in both cases, tightened standards in the US led to more domestic patenting, but not more foreign patenting. Overall, the data suggest that inventors respond to environmental regulatory pressure in their own country, but not to foreign environmental regulations. Moreover, any technology transfer that occurs appears to be indirect. Domestic innovation occurs even for technologies that have already experienced significant innovative activity abroad and utilities purchase pollution abatement equipment from domestic firms. However, patent citation data from the US do show that earlier foreign patents are an important building block for NOX pollution control innovations in the US.
AB - Using patent data from the United States, Japan, and Germany, this paper examines both innovation and diffusion of air pollution control equipment. Whereas the United States was an early adopter of stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards, both Japan and Germany introduced stringent nitrogen dioxide (NOX) standards much earlier than the US. Nonetheless, in both cases, tightened standards in the US led to more domestic patenting, but not more foreign patenting. Overall, the data suggest that inventors respond to environmental regulatory pressure in their own country, but not to foreign environmental regulations. Moreover, any technology transfer that occurs appears to be indirect. Domestic innovation occurs even for technologies that have already experienced significant innovative activity abroad and utilities purchase pollution abatement equipment from domestic firms. However, patent citation data from the US do show that earlier foreign patents are an important building block for NOX pollution control innovations in the US.
KW - Air pollution
KW - Environmental policy
KW - Induced innovation
KW - Technology transfer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=30844464138&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=30844464138&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jeem.2005.04.006
DO - 10.1016/j.jeem.2005.04.006
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:30844464138
SN - 0095-0696
VL - 51
SP - 46
EP - 71
JO - Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
IS - 1
ER -