4.7 Article

How does international trade network affect multinational diffusion of wind power technology?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123245

关键词

Technology diffusion; Bass model; International trade network; Pooled effect; Wind power technology

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71872169, 71874177, 71843002, 71810107004, 71772014, 71950008]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [9202019]
  3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences [Y8540XX1P2, Y8540XX1Z2]
  4. National Social Science Foundation of China [18ZDA101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used cross-country trade data of wind-generated power to construct the international trade network which the countries act as the vertices and trade flows between countries act as the arcs. We examined the trade networks' roles in determining the diffusion of wind power technology across countries from two perspectives: pooled effect produced by an entire international trade network, and individual effect produced by an identified country with advanced technology. Empirical results reveal that different facets of the structure of the international trade networks exhibit either positive or negative spillover effects: country cohorts that are more clustered and closer in the international trade network generate a negative impact on the diffusion of wind power technology, while acting as the trade intermediate between other countries generates a positive impact. We simplified the trade networks and presented the diagram that outlines the paths in which diffusion occurs in the global pool of wind power technology. This diagram identifies the countries that generate significant spillover effects on others and thus provides us further knowledge about the diffusion pattern of wind power technology throughout the globe, which in turn benefits energy restructuring and risk hedging of global warming. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据