Upload
camilla-chlebna
View
97
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Role of Informal Institutions for Institutional Co-evolutionThe Case of the Wind Energy Industry in Germany and Britain
Camilla M. Chlebna MSc#12112222, Department of Planning
Supervisors:Prof. James SimmieDr. Dave VallerSellafield Nuclear Power Station, Cumbria, NW-England, UK
• Introduction• Theoretical proposition
• Key elements• Hypotheses
• Research Design and Method• Analysis
• Framework• Early Findings
PRESENTATION STRUCTURE
Eclectic approach, influenced by economic geography as well as evolutionary, political and institutional economics
Development from invention/innovation to industry is non-linear(Nelson & Winter, 1977; Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; Llundvall et al, 2002)
Three kinds of institutions (formal and informal, organisational)(Polanyi, 1957; North, 1991; North, 1996; Rafiqui, 2009)
Co-evolution of institutions and technology(Perez, 1983; Nelson, 1998; Strambach, 2010)
Multi-layered approach (Geels, 2002)
THEORY BACKGROUND
HYPOTHESES
Institutions need to co-evolve to enable new technologies to enter and develop
As new technologies emerge they are not usually immediately able to compete but are relying on protected spaces, created through institutional frameworks, in which they can develop.
Informal institutions influence how well institutions co-evolve
The prevalence of certain informal institutions has an important impact on how well the institutions are able to co-evolve with new technologies (how “up to date” institutions are).
Fieldwork Research QuestionsWho tried to shape formal institutions over the years?
What motivated them?Were they successful?
Why? Why not?What are the interactions with and between institutions?
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
Explanatory Design
Quantitative elementQuantitative, secondary data will be drawn in for descriptive purposes
Qualitative element36 semi-structured expert interviews in 2015• 4 pilot interviews with academics• 32 interviews in main fieldwork• 18 German, 18 British• 26 face to face, 10 phone
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
employers
Form
al in
stitu
tions
•Le
gal f
ram
ewor
k
Org
anis
atio
nal f
orm
s of
in
stitu
tions
•G
over
nmen
ts o
n lo
cal/r
egio
nal/n
atio
nal/s
uper
ordi
nate
leve
l
Info
rmal
inst
itutio
ns•
Beh
avio
ural
nor
ms,
idea
s, v
alue
s,
tech
nolo
gica
l par
adig
ms
Policy makers
Civil society agents
employers
Policy makers
Civil society agents
impact
impact
impactIndirect power
Indirect power
Power to change
Ongoing dynamic of re(production)
Rent seeking pressure
Rent seeking pressure
???
???
???
???Con
text
?
EARLY FINDINGS
How do informal institutions impact on institutional co-evolution and technological development?
What this means for theory
Civil society: Attitudes and values -> engagement and investment, motivation to act
Institutions:Prevalence of attitudes -> setting of political priorities; inter-dependency of institutions
Economic landscape:Technological paradigms -> ability to innovate and adapt, consumers/investors -> business practice
What the data shows
Civil society: German inventors ideologically motivated, David against Goliath, Chernobyl and Fukushima - Anti nuclear sentiment not equally strong in Britain
Institutions:Energy trilemma: energy security (GER), affordability (UK) and climate change (GER)Political pressure to consider climate and anti-nuclear attitude in GER, overhaul of support mechanisms only in response to EU directive in the UK
Economic landscape:large scale focus for energy generation everywhere; consumers’ power, divestment movement
EARLY FINDINGS
What is the ‘context’ for informal institutions to form and persist?
What the data shows
Variety of CapitalismBritish market ideology in the way of supporting new industries; German cross party consensus on direction, then creation of environment for innovation
HistoryNuclear power very much top-down decision for Germany (1950s), Britain first nation to use nuclear power for civil purpose
Culture‘Made in Germany’, but also excessive protection for large industry from energy levyBritish focus on service industry and lowest cost delivery
What this means for theory
Variety of CapitalismVoC -> state expected either to implement and encourage ‘systems of innovation’ or to stay out in order to ‘keep markets free’ (industrial strategy, political priorities)
HistoryHistorical experiences -> values and norms
Culture= behavioural norms and common practice, ideas of what deals may be ok or not
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
Camilla M. Chlebna [email protected]
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any suggestions or feedback that you can offer.
International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics: http://www.isipe.net/
World Interdisciplinary Network for Institutional Research: http://winir.org/
Fieldwork supported by
Slide 1Atomkraft Nein Danke!: Schoolmann S. http://www.nordland-virus.de/wordpress/?p=94. Hamburg, Germany. Accessed on 23rd February 2016. Nuclear Power Station, Sellafield, Cumbria, UK: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3247657.ece The Times Online, London, UK. Accessed on 19th May 2016.Slide 3Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy. 31, 1257–1274.Kline SJ and Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: R. Landau & N. Rosenberg eds. The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington D.C., USA: National Academy Press. 275–305.Lundvall B-Å, Johnson B, Andersen ES and Dalum B (2002) National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy. 31, 213–231.Nelson RR (1998) The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions. In: G. Dosi, D. Teece, & J. Chytry eds. Technology, Organisation and Competitiveness - Perspectives on Industrial and Corporate Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 319–335.Nelson RR and Winter SG (1977) In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation. Research Policy. 6, 36–76.North DC (1991) Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5 (1), 97–112.North DC (1996) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES I
Perez C (1983) Structural Change and Assimilation of New Technologies in the Economic and Social Systems. Futures. 15 (5), 357–375.Polanyi K, Arensberg CM and Pearson HW eds. (1957) Trade and Market in the Early Empires - Economies in History and Theory. Glencoe, IL, USA: The Free Press & The Falcon’s Wing PressRafiqui PS (2009) Evolving economic landscapes: why new institutional economics matters for economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography. 9, 329–353.Strambach S (2010) Path dependence and path plasticity: the co-evolution of institutions and innovation - the German customized business software industry. In: R. Boschma & R. Martin eds. The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 406–429.Slide 5Eurostat (2015). Employed 15 – 64 year olds in 2014. Brussels, Belgium.OECD, REGPAT database, July 2013.O’Sullivan M, Lehr U, Edler D (2015). Bruttobeschäftigung durch Erneuerbare Energien in Deutschland und verringerte fossile Brennstoffimporte durch Erneuerbare Energien und Energieeffizienz. – Zulieferung für den Monitoringbericht September 2015. BMWE. Berlin, Germany.RenewableUK (2015a). Wind Energy in the UK. State of the Industry Report Summary October 2015. London, UK.RenewableUK (2015b). Onshore Wind: Economic Impacts in 2014. Executive Summary April 2015., London, UK.TheWindPower.net (2016). Wind Turbine Manufacturers. Database, April 2016. Tournefouille, France.Slide 10Rethinking Economics Conference 2015. Greenwich University. London, UK. Own picture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES II
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Wind power related applications as share of total applications [1978 - 2012]
GER GermanyGB Great Britain
Wind energy relatively recently developed industry (with pioneers still around)
Germany world leader in turbine manufacturing until recently, Britain initially had companies but did not pursue or were sold(TheWindPower.net, 2016)
Construction / manufacturing is the most employment intensive part of wind energy development, but UK lacks companies in this part of the supply chain(RenewableUK, 2015b)
Similar rates of invention but in UK tendency to sell IP to companies abroad What motivates inventors? Profit vs idealism?(OECD, 2013)
CHOICE OF CASES
Employment in wind energy:UK 15.500 [2014/15 – 0.05% of about 29.5m employed total]
GER 149.200 [2014 – 0.4% of about 38.9m employed total](RenewableUK, 2015a; O’Sullivan et al., 2015; Eurostat, 2015)