Executive Summary - Designing the Green Economy

Executive Summary: Designing the Green Economy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

DESIGNING THE GREEN ECONOMY

REPORT FROM AN EXPERTS WORKSHOP

THE GENEVA WORKSHOP DECEMBER 2011

THE GRADUATE INSTITUTE – GENEVA

A WORKSHOP SPONSORED BY UNEP AND THE CENTRE FOR

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THE GRADUATE

INSTITUTE-GENEVA, 11-13 DECEMBER, 2011.



Introduction

The question of how governments can direct

economies towards a sustainable path of

growth is a topic that currently ranks high on

the agendas of policy makers. Together with the

question of how such a policy can benefit the

society concerned, these two questions are at

the heart of the pursuit of the “Green

Economy”.

This short paper attempts to summarise what

economics as an academic discipline can tell us

about the hard questions which underlie this

policy discussion. This Executive Summary is the

synthesis of the academic discussions held at

the workshop “Designing the Green Economy”

together with an economic framework paper

developed for that workshop (Swanson and

Ziegelhöfer 2011). The Executive Summary

attempts to summarise the consensus view of

the participants at the workshop (see Annex for

the Workshop Agenda).

We make the case that composite policies can

be designed which enable a society to pursue

multiple objectives, combining environmental,

innovation, growth/development and

competitiveness goals. We discuss the

underlying economics of the policy discussions

and provide insight regarding what instruments

and policies may work to target the mentioned

composite goals. In the discussion, we

distinguish between the different needs

between developed countries - which may

benefit from the Green Economy by innovation

at the technology frontier - and developing

countries which are more likely to benefit from

technology transfer, diffusion and other means.

We argue that economies can be directed

towards the Green Economy by means of a

combination of resource management and

innovation policies. In terms of resource

management policies, governments can place

appropriate prices on resources (including

natural public goods such as the atmosphere).

Appropriate resource prices (reflecting the path

of future scarcity) will foster green technological

progress by influencing the rate and direction of

investment in innovation.

Innovation policies take the form of (usually)

direct investments by the government to relieve

constraints that hinder the development of new

technologies. These investments can generate

new forms of capital – in order to enable the

industry to advance in a particular direction

(such as investments in particular forms of

human capital) or these investments can relax

conditions that are preventing change in the

society (such as retirement of forms of capital).

For developing countries, the Green Economy is

not so much a question of innovation at the

technological frontier but rather one of

technology transfer and diffusion. By designing

appropriate policies, developing countries can

strengthen their capacity to adapt green

technologies and hence to become receptive to

a flow of benefits from the Green Economy.

In the following, we will summarise the basic

economics behind the notion of the Green

Economy, and explain how and when economics

can justify economies moving in this direction.


Growth, Resource Limits and Economics –

fundamental issues

First we outline what it takes for an economy to

develop along a sustainable path of growth. We

base our discussion of the concept of

sustainability around the economics definition,

stated as “non-declining consumption” over

time (Pezzey 1992). This means that a path is

chosen that enables a society to expect growth

and consumption to continue into the indefinite

future.

The question whether growth and consumption

can be sustained in the face of finite resources

was discussed in the early economic works of

Malthus and Ricardo in the 19th

century. Both

authors believed that growth could not continue

indefinitely. Also in modern times, similar

arguments have been brought forward by

various “neo-Malthusians” (Meadows et al.

1972). However, time has demonstrated that

these simplified models have not yet correctly

predicted the end of growth. On the contrary,

productivity has yet to decline on account of

increasing resource scarcity. How is it possible

for modern economies to avoid the fact of life

that is finite resources?

The historic experience points to two important

factors in avoiding the limits to growth: First, it

is necessary that economies consist of a

structure of production which is flexible enough

to allow for substitution between scarce and

abundant forms of capital (“substitutability in

production”); and secondly, it is important for

technological change to occur in a form that

productivity is increased in the face of declining

resource throughputs (“resource augmenting”

technological progress). In the following, we

outline this rationale.

In initial stages of development, societies will

usually rely heavily upon natural resources, and

economies will consist of high levels of

throughput from the natural environment (in

the form of natural goods and services). Solow

(1974) argued that this is because these sorts of

societies are relying heavily upon natural capital

for the vast majority of their goods and services.

In this way Solow conceives of natural resources

as “the natural form of capital”. With increasing

development and growth, natural capital is

progressively transformed into other forms of

capital, namely physical, human and even social

forms of capital. This rebalancing of capital is

one of the important drivers of development.

For sustainability to occur, the Hartwick-Solow

rule stipulates that a society should “invest all

profits or rents from exhaustible resources in

reproducible capital” (Hartwick 1977). The

possibility for this process to endure indefinitely

depends on the extent to which physical capital

is substitutable for natural capital. Substitutable

natural capital together with the reinvestment

of capital (the so-called Hartwick-Solow rule) are

necessary but not sufficient conditions for

sustained growth. It is also necessary to

combine the conversion of capital stocks with

directed technological progress. Due to

decreasing returns to capital, growth will cease

in the absence of technological progress that is

able to secure increasing productivity from

reduced resource inputs (Smulders 2000).

What nature of technological progress is

required? It is necessary for increasing scarcities

to be reflected in increasing prices across time,

and that these price paths are foreseeable into

the indefinite future. When this is the case,

then the foreseen price paths of resource inputs

will be reflected in the forms of capital


investments that will be chosen (Dasgupta and

Heal 1980). In short, a capital investment that is

expected to endure for many years into the

future must incorporate into its plan of

operations the cost of the resources upon which

it must rely.

This means that any foreseen resource scarcities

are not impediments to growth and production,

so long as these scarcities are reflected in the

prices of inputs that current plans for capital

investments incorporate. Directed technological

progress consists of building the current capital

stock around such future scarcities, so that the

path and direction of innovation anticipates

them fully.

How can sustainability of an economy go

wrong? It can head down the wrong path any

time that an important resource scarcity is not

reflected well in the prices of inputs. When

market prices do not reflect real scarcities well,

this phenomenon is known as market

imperfection often as the result of externalities.

In the presence of market imperfections,

governments must act to direct innovation

down the right path toward sustainability.

Governments can do so by means of two

different approaches to intervention: resource

management or innovation policy. Resource

management may be used to impose increased

prices upon (relatively low-priced) resource use.

For a restriction on the use of water in a place

where free access was previously the law will

raise the cost of access to users. The perceived

increased cost of access – generated through

resource management policies – will then be the

price path used to make current capital

investment decisions.

In this way resource management policies have

the implicit effect of inducing innovation in the

direction of sustainability. It encourages

investment in innovations that reduce use of the

newly priced resource, and in capital forms that

embed these innovations. So, resource

management can divert the economy from its

initial pollution-intensive growth path through

management (Stokey 1998) toward a greener

(i.e. less polluting) developmental path

(Smulders et al. 2005).

Is resource management adequate by itself for

the purpose of guiding an economy towards

sustainability? In an empirical analysis of

innovation in the automotive industry Aghion et

al. (2010) show that innovations react to price

signals but also that path dependency plays an

important role in determining the direction of

investments. Companies invest not only in

technology but also in a particular variety of

human capital that accompanies the applied

technologies. As a consequence, the earlier a

company switches to green technologies, the

less costly the transition will be. A company may

instead find itself locked into dirty technologies,

on account of fixed investments in associated

forms of capital. For this reason, inducing

change towards a Green Economy may require

government policies that enable firms to

respond to the price signals in resource

management.

Finally it is important to note that the prices of

resources are not always a matter of exclusive

domestic concern or control. When global

environmental goods such as climate change

mitigation are concerned, the scarcity of the

resource relies upon international cooperation

to be realised. Integrated Assessment Models

by Carraro, Bosetti and colleagues show that

under incomplete cooperation it becomes much

harder to reach global climate objectives if

important actors do not commit to reducing


carbon emissions (Bosetti et al. 2011). Effective

resource management policies will often require

that the resources concerned are managed at

the level at which they exist (local, national,

regional, global).

Innovation Policy, Environment and

Growth

It was indicated above that there are two basic

areas of policy that might be used to address

problems of sustainability. In both areas of

policy the objective is to encourage the

attainment of sustainability through creating

incentives for investment in innovations in the

right direction. Resource management attempts

to do this by pricing resource scarcities

correctly, and thereby inducing innovations in

the direction of resource conservation.

Another area of policy that may be pursued is

that of directed innovation policy. In this

instance innovation is induced through

incentives other than resource pricing. How

else can innovation be induced in the direction

of sustainability?

The determinants of innovation are complex

and they depend in large part on national

circumstances and histories. The major

stimulants are market-based and include

relative prices, competition and demand

growth. The primary role of government policy

has historically included general human capital

(knowledge) and infrastructure support, fiscal

incentives, and IPR and competition policy.

Taken together, these national innovation policy

systems can be effective in driving innovation in

a particular direction.

To shift economies towards a Green Economy is

a complex issue that is distinct from some of the

great challenges to innovation encountered in

the past. Substantial innovation efforts then

were often conducted through large centrally

directed research programs such as the

“Manhattan or Apollo projects”. The innovation

efforts toward the atomic bomb or the moon

expedition were more concrete in terms of the

definition of the objectives as well as the means

of achieving them. An innovation policy

directed toward a Green Economy is a more

general and broad-based affair - coming from

various sectors and different types of

technologies. For example, a challenge like

climate change has no single technological

answer and the space of potential solutions is

large.

This also poses a distinct challenge involving the

trade-off between knowledge creation versus

diffusion. At the global level sustainable growth

is not just about knowledge creation but also

about its diffusion. Climate change problems

require that innovations, once they exist, are

also applied widely and not used by only a few

technology leaders. If governments wait for

economic incentives through scarcity prices to

kick in at the domestic level across the world,

technology adoption may be too slow.

Finally, much of the conventional wisdom about

innovation policy may not be applicable in the

case of Green Economy goals. Many innovation

policies are based upon notions of proprietary

or intellectual property rights, systems of laws

that confer exclusive market rights upon those

innovators who meet registration requirements.

The problem here is that such rights systems

(such as IPRs) may influence the rate but not the

direction of innovation. They only confer

incentives upon those innovators whose

innovations are sold within existing markets. If

there is no perceived need or demand for the

innovation, then no market (and hence no


incentive to invest in it) will exist. For example,

an innovation that removes a pollutant from air

will not be created under an IPR system until the

government first intervenes to register the cost

of that pollutant (through resource

management policies for example).

In sum innovation policies are an interesting and

important supplement to the resource

management policies that drive the pursuit of

sustainability. Hence, direct investments or

incentive mechanisms (such as prizes and

subsidies) have been used to complement

resource policies in order to overcome problems

of path dependency and human capital under-

investment. Also, centralized innovation policies

can play a crucial role in the diffusion of

innovations when this is an equally important

part of the final objective. The pursuit of

sustainability may require some combination of

policies (resource management and direct

innovation) to fill the gaps left by the market.

Policy Intervention, Environment and

Competitiveness

Why might it benefit a particular country to

pursue the attainment of a Green Economy? In

the first instance, it would appear that resource

management policies might constrain an

economy and reduce growth, but management

also unfolds second order effects through the

change of incentives and the direction of

innovation. Porter and Van der Linde (1995)

have argued that the benefits from induced

innovation can outweigh the static effects – the

so-called Porter effect.

There are two reasons why resource

management might be important to the

competitiveness of a national economy. First,

there is the possibility that appropriate resource

management and innovation policies may

induce investments and innovation that may

result in the country achieving “technological

leadership” (Porter and Van der Linde 1995).

Technological leadership can result when a state

is able to secure innovations (and associated

proprietary rights) that enable that state to

acquire rents from its leadership. This has

occurred in the case of Denmark and wind

turbines (in the 1990s) and in the case of Japan

and hybrid engine and catalytic converter

technologies (in the 1970s-1990s). Both

instances represent countries that embarked

upon costly resource management and

innovation programs early, and then benefited

when other states needed to license their

proprietary technology.

A related phenomenon is “policy leadership”.

This occurs when a state adopts a particular

resource management policy that is later

adopted by many others, resulting in national

investment responses similar to the initial

adopters. Here the technological leadership is

a direct result of making a particular policy

move first, rather than the general desirability

of the technology involved (Kern et al. 2001),

(Jänicke and Jacob 2004).

Box 1: Biofuel Production in Brazil

Brazil is currently a global leader in

producing ethanol-based biofuels and many

countries are now following suit in order to

reduce their dependency on petroleum-

based fuels. The success of a large-scale

biofuel program in Brazil has been largely

driven by the government’s support of the

ethanol industry in the wake of the oil crisis

in the early 1970s which coincided with the

collapse of sugar prices. As an attempt to

reduce its dependency on foreign fuel and

to increase growth and stability of sugar

production, President Ernesto Geisel


launched the National Alcohol Program

(Proalcool) in 1975. This program aimed to

reduce demand for imported fuel by

supplementing gasoline with alcohol. It has

since become the largest bioenergy

program in the world.

Government policies played a large role in

encouraging biofuel use, fuelling further

expansion of the ethanol industry. They

include, for instance, tax benefits for

alcohol-run cars and a ceiling on ethanol

prices (up to 65% of gasoline prices). The

government has also established high

minimum ethanol fuel blend requirements

and ordered that ethanol be available at all

fuelling stations. In order to encourage the

auto industry to get on board with the

country’s biofuel initiatives, the government

provided support for car companies to

manufacture vehicles that could use ethanol

rather than gasoline for fuel. By the end of

1980, cars that could run on alcohol

accounted for 73% of the total car sales.

A technological advancement was further

fuelled by the invention of the flex fuel car

in 2003 which had a huge impact on the

biofuel industry. Owners of these vehicles

could alter the ratio of ethanol to petroleum

that they use to power their cars in order to

adapt to fluctuating prices of oil and sugar.

As a result, the changes in prices of

petroleum no longer affect the production

of alcohol-run cars. Approximately 90% of

the automobiles being produced in Brazil

today are dual fuel.

The expansion of the biofuel industry

however raised concern that the industry

could offset its carbon savings through

deforestation. Sugarcane production would

need to increase to meet increasing ethanol

demands with significant implications for

deforestation.

Why did Brazil succeed in transitioning to

biofuels while other countries that were

also affected by the 1970s oil crisis

remained reliant on petroleum? The case of

Brazilian biofuels demonstrates that the

country’s intention to manage resources

and find alternative energy sources resulted

in “policy leadership” as well as

“technological leadership” for innovation.

In general, these case studies demonstrate that

countries that undertake leadership in particular

resource policies can also achieve leadership in

investments, innovations, and finally transfers

of the associated technologies. Such policies, if

properly designed, induce domestic companies

to innovate which may provide them with a

competitive edge (first mover advantage) vis-à-

vis their competitors.

When identifying opportunities and designing

policies for inducing innovation, governments

should be extremely careful: The exercise of

forecasting future resource scarcities is an

exercise in speculation. Forecasting the future

is always uncertain and never without risk.

Nevertheless, the point of investing in a Green

Economy is to recognize those resource

scarcities that are clear, unavoidable and

(currently) un-priced, and to be one of the first

to build these unavoidable scarcities into the

economy.

Green Economies and Developing

Economies

For most emerging markets and developing

countries, the competitiveness benefits from

the Green Economy are not about innovation at


the frontier and capturing rents from first mover

advantages. For most new technologies,

research in developing countries cannot

compete with innovation activity in developed

countries. But does this mean that there is no

benefit for developing countries from directing

their economies towards a sustainable growth

path? On the contrary, we believe that

developing countries should invest in their

capacity to adapt green technologies to their

countries and, hence, to become receptive to

the benefits of green innovation.

It makes sense for developing countries to be

able to adapt rapidly to changes occurring at the

technological frontier. If they do not, developing

country companies may find themselves locked

into obsolete technologies and capital stocks.

This in turn renders their economies less

competitive due to inefficiencies and

incompatibilities with what is happening in

other markets.

The creation of an innovation does not

automatically lead to its diffusion. The creation

of knowledge and its diffusion often are two

very different systems, and different policies

may be required to address both. For example,

for many years agriculture has been progressing

at the frontier under a private system of

proprietary rights, while the diffusion of these

innovations has occurred via public extension

systems (government agencies, universities and

research institutes). Policies are necessary to

address diffusion just as much as creation.

Developing countries benefit enormously from

technological transfer and diffusion, and will

benefit greatly from gearing their economies

towards this. For countries which are not at the

technology frontier, foreign technology

accounts for more than 90 % of productivity

increases (Keller 2004).

Diffusion must be aided through appropriately

structured government interventions. To benefit

from the diffusion of technologies, developing

countries need to invest in their capacity to

adapt technologies to their respective local

settings. Local conditions can create a

resistance to the flow of information and

innovation into local economies (Ruttan and

Hayami 1973). And it is important to recognize

that diffusion is about the adaptation of

innovations as much as it is about adoption.

Diffusion has the dual role of not just spreading

innovations but also to enable firms to identify,

assimilate and exploit existing local knowledge

(Cohen and Levinthal 1989).

What are the conditions that enable

diffusion of innovations to flow smoothly

across nations?

First, as mentioned before, proprietary rights

(such as IPR systems) have the positive benefit

of encouraging innovation at the frontier but

can do so at the cost of reduced transmission of

information off of the frontier. It is important

for firms that hold proprietary rights to invest in

their diffusion, and this does not always occur.

In this instance, it may be important for public

systems to coexist with proprietary ones in

order to enable diffusion and licensing.

How can individual developing countries

enhance their own chances of success – in

capturing some share of the flow of

innovations? Trajtenberg (2009) outlines key

policies, emphasising investments in human

capital and the encouragement of capital

markets. In addition, an openness to global

technology markets and general foreign direct

investment is crucial. This also extends to the

acquisition of lower-cost second-tier

technologies. Rapid technology diffusion and

adaptation (market transformation) among


otherwise competitive firms should be

encouraged. Furthermore, policy makers should

facilitate information flows about promising

areas of science and engineering and put in

place incentives to build up R&D capacity in

local enterprises (Odagiri et al. 2010).

In sum, the goal of developing countries in

regard to garnering the competitiveness

advantages of the Green Economy should

probably place most emphasis upon policies

targeting the diffusion of technological change,

i.e. the adaptation and use of information flows

from innovations that are occurring elsewhere.

This is in itself no small task, and it may require

far more complex policy interventions than for

innovation itself. Investments in human capital,

information flow, and general financial and

technological development are important. In

this way developing countries can benefit from

capturing their shares of the flow of information

emanating from the frontiers.

Trade and Investment Policy, State

Intervention and Innovation

International trade and investment regulations

have been put in place for good reasons and can

foster the Green Economy by providing a solid

and secure context for flows of innovation and

investment.

One of the most important roles which

international law plays in fostering green

investment (and investment in general) is to

ensure a certain business environment.

Certainty regarding trade and investment

regulation is particularly important to the Green

Economy due to the interlinked and global

supply chains in sustainable energy goods and

services. For example, new technologies such as

renewable energies may require a high upfront

investment. The globalisation of the supply

chains allows firms to leverage cost-advantages

in production and to keep prices for equipment

and services at low world market prices.

At the same time, in international trade law,

there is also a set of rules that places constraints

on the policy instruments that might be used to

support the transformation towards a Green

Economy. There are three set of constraints

which have to be considered in designing

policies: 1) The non-discrimination principle, 2)

government procurement regulation and, 3)

rules regarding subsidies. To give an example,

the EU now imposes land use standards on

biofuel imports that apply to EU biofuel

production. This is admissible as long as the

same standards are imposed on EU production

as well as foreign production alike and hence

there is no discrimination between domestic

and foreign firms.

The more problematic proscriptions under WTO

rules are the ones regulating public

procurement and public subsidies favoring

national industries. As we have indicated

throughout this Policy Brief, many of the

innovation policies that are well-designed for a

Green Economy involve investments in specific

industries. For example, it may be important to

invest in particular supply chains or human

capital development in order to foster a given

industry. It is not clear whether such

investments in carefully selected industries are

in violation of trade rules, but it is not always

clear that they are not. It will be important for

international institutions to recognise and

address the potential conflicts built into the

objectives of innovation policy and trade policy.

In sum, it is important for Green Economy

strategies to take into account the legal realities

of the trading system and to design policies

which as compatible as is possible with WTO


regulations. At the same time it is important to

recognize that policies that are built around

composite goals (such as innovation,

environment and economic growth) must

necessarily involve built-in trade-offs between

these multiple objectives. International

institutions will have to come to deal with these

more complex policy environments.

Conclusion: Policy

Recommendations

Developed and developing countries can both

benefit from the Green Economy but the ways

in which they can benefit from directing their

economies toward a sustainable growth path

are likely to differ. The different objectives also

translate into substantially different policy

recommendations for developed and

developing countries.

How should developed countries invest in

the Green Economy?

Resource management policies are the first

policy objective in pursuit of the Green Economy

in developed countries. This is done by

anticipating future resource scarcities, and

“getting the prices right” as early as possible.

Through appropriate resource pricing, countries

can benefit from first mover advantages by

directing their economies towards green

innovation by anticipating future resource

scarcities. If governments can anticipate either

what the correct resource scarcity values will be

or anticipate in which direction environmental

regulation will develop in the future, they can

enable domestic firms to be one step ahead by

imposing the future scarcity value on their

industries today. Companies will then

incorporate those scarcity values in their

investment decisions, including investment in

research and development. For this reason,

environmental regulation can induce innovation

which may turn into a competitive edge for the

domestic industries.

Directed innovation policy can be an equally

important part of the policy environment in

achieving the advantages of the Green

Economy. Targeted prizes, contests, or

investments can be crucial for reaching a

particular target or to relieve a particular

constraint. Most experts recommend that policy

makers consider a combined policy of resource

management and innovation in order to achieve

a Green Economy advantage.

How should developing countries invest in

the Green Economy?

Diffusion (technology transfer) is the key to

success in developing countries. Most of the

technology applied in developing countries

diffuses from abroad. Therefore, developing

countries should invest in their capacity to

adapt innovations to their local contexts and

become receptive to green innovation and

benefit through its diffusion.

Early adoption can be useful for developing

countries. The absence of environmental

regulation can distort the local markets towards

dirty technologies. Due to path dependence

(sunk costs), firms in such countries may get

locked into an inferior production technology

that is difficult to alter.

Developing countries thus benefit from seeing

the Green Economy as the economy of the

future, and learning (and investing) to reach it

as soon as possible. In this way these countries

stand the least chance of being left behind.


Policy Recommendations – Institutions

It is important that all policy makers work

together for the purpose of encouraging both

innovation and diffusion. In some contexts there

can be conflicts between these two objectives,

and these conflicts need to be both recognised

and addressed. This can be done by a strategy

of combining policies, e.g. proprietary rights for

innovation and public sector investments for

diffusion, or it can be done by recognising the

inherent trade-offs between them, and

choosing a policy that balances both objectives

(some compromise between innovation and

diffusion).

It is particularly important for international

institutions to recognise that single-policy

objectives are no longer the best (or probably

possible) way to progress. Composite national

policies that target some combination of

objectives (environmental, growth, innovation,

development) are the most likely way forward

in the future. It is important that the

international institutional environment evolve in

order to recognise that such complexity and

trade-offs exist within the policy-making

environment, in order to accommodate its

further development.


Bibliography and Further Reading

Aghion, P., A. Dechezlepretre, D. Hemous,

R. Martin, and J. Van Reenen (2010). Carbon

taxes, path dependency and directed technical

change: Evidence from the auto industry.

Bosetti, V., C. Carraro , E. De Cian, E. Massetti,

M.Tavoni (2011). Incentives and Stability of

International Climate Coalitions: An Integrated

Assessment, FEEM Working Paper n. 097.

Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal (1989). Innovation

and learning: the two faces of R & D. The

economic journal, 569–596.

Dasgupta, P. and G. Heal (1980). Economic

theory and exhaustible resources. Cambridge

Univ Pr.

Hall, B. and B. Khan (2003). Adoption of new

technology. NBER working paper.

Hartwick, J. M. (1977). Intergenerational equity

and the investing of rents from exhaustible

resources. The American Economic

Review 67(5), 972–974.

Jänicke, M. and K. Jacob (2004). Lead markets

for environmental innovations: a new role for

the nation state. Global Environmental

Politics 4(1), 29–46.

Keller, W. (2004). International technology

diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature 42(3),

752–782.

Kern, K., H. Jörgens, and M. Jänicke (2001). The

Diffusion of Environmental Policy Innovations. A

Contribution to the Globalisation of

Environmental Policy, Wissenschaftszentrum

Berlin für Sozialforschung. Technical report,

Discussion Paper FS II 01-302, Berlin.

Meadows, D., D. Meadows, J. Randers,

W. Behrens, and R. C. of (1972). The limits to

growth. Universe Books New York.

Odagiri, H., A. Goto, and A. Sunami (2010).

Intellectual property rights, development, and

catch up: an international comparative study.

Oxford University Press.

Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainable development

concepts: An Economic Analysis, Environmental

Paper No. 2, Washington D.C.: World Bank.

Porter, M. and C. Van der Linde (1995). Toward

a new conception of the environment-

competitiveness relationship. The Journal of

Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97–118.

Ruttan, V. W. and Y. Hayami (1973). Technology

transfer and agricultural development.

Technology and Culture 14(2), 119–151.

Smulders, S. (2000). Economic growth and

environmental quality. Principles of

Environmental Economics, Cheltenham UK:

Edward Elgar.

Smulders, S., L. Bretschger, and H. Egli (2005).

Economic growth and the diffusion of clean

technologies: explaining environmental Kuznets

curves. Economics Working Paper Series,

Institute of Economic Research of ETH

Zürich 05/42, 1–28.

Solow, R. (1974). Intergenerational equity and

exhaustible resources. The review of economic

studies 41, 29–45.

Stokey, N. (1998). Are there limits to growth?

International Economic Review 39(1), 1–31.

Swanson, T. and Z. Ziegelhöfer (2011). Green

economy: Economic frameworks for thinking

about growth, sustainability, and the role of

state intervention. UNEP Working Paper, 1–60.


Trajtenberg, M. (2009). Innovation policy for

development: an overview, Chapter 5, pp. 367–

395. Edward Elgar.

Executive Summary - Designing the Green Economy

Documents

Transcript of Executive Summary - Designing the Green Economy