Control of SO2 emissions from power plants: A case of induced technological innovation in the U.S.

By Margaret R. Taylor, Edward S. Rubin, David A. Hounshell. 2005

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a863dd686d2a022f0b2c9c4778637ee3b66bb0b9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda (2009, background): “It is certainly against the empirical evidence (on all firms, not only SMEs) that shows that greater stringency (within sufficiently long compliance periods) generally leads to more radical environmental technology responses (see Greenstone, 2003 and Taylor et al., 2005a ).”
Forcing technological change: A case of automobile emissions control technology development in the US (2010, background): “One interesting implication of this finding is that the uncertainties implicit in the anticipation of regulation may themselves have driven the innovation.18 Nevertheless, Taylor et al. (2005) claimed that the ‘‘informed traditional’’ environmental policies combining demandpull with technology-push ”
The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments — A typical case of the blind men and the elephant? (2011, methodology): “One of the best studies into the environmental technology effects of policy is the study of Taylor et al. (2005), into the policy determinants of innovation in SO2 control technology.”
Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations (2014, background): “In relation to SO2 pollution abatement technologies, Taylor et al. (2005) find that public R&D for technology push was less effective than governmental demand creation through the construction of niche markets from legislation and regulation.”
Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry (2011, background): “006 cease to have any incentives to further invest in the development of other technologies that could achieve results beyond those expected by the regulators, or could meet the same targets more efficiently or cheaply (Jaffe et al., 2002; Popp, 2003; Taylor et al., 2005).”
A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves (2012, background): “for FGD systems (Taylor, 2001; Taylor et al., 2005) and by Yeh, et al.”
The innovation impact of the EU Emission Trading System — Findings of company case studies in the German power sector (2011, background): “5 Empirical studies are less conclusive here (e.g. Mickwitz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2005).”
The impact of environmental policy instruments on innovation: A review of energy and automotive industry studies (2014, background): “form of an emission limit per MBtu heat input (Taylor et al., 2005).”
Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California's solar policy (2008, background): “At the broadest level, the complexity of the interaction amongst the relevant market failures complicates evaluation, as does the multi-faceted innovation process itself, which is defined differently by different authors (see, for example, Grubler et al., 1999; Jaffe et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 20”
A bibliometric review of the innovation adoption literature (2018, background): “Scholars have applied integral conceptualizations to study the effect of governmental policies on adoption by focusing on the nexus between technology and environmental policies [179-182] and on the nexus between incentive- and prescriptiveoriented policy instruments [183, 184].”