4.7 Article

Impact of energy technology patents in China: Evidence from a panel cointegration and error correction model

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 214-223

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.034

关键词

Energy technology patents; R&D activities; Energy price; Panel cointegration model; China

资金

  1. Xiamen University - Newcastle University
  2. Grant for Collaborative Innovation Center for Energy Economics and Energy Policy [1260-Z0210011]
  3. Xiamen University [1260-Y07200]
  4. China Sustainable Energy Program [G-1506-23315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhancing energy technology innovation performance, which is widely measured by energy technology patents through energy technology research and development (R&D) activities, is a fundamental way to implement energy conservation and emission abatement. This study analyzes the effects of R&D investment activities, economic growth, and energy price on energy technology patents in 30 provinces of China over the period 1999-2013. Several unit root tests indicate that all the above variables are generated by panel unit root processes, and a panel cointegration model is confirmed among the variables. In order to ensure the consistency of the estimators, the Fully-Modified OLS (FMOLS) method is adopted, and the results indicate that R&D investment activities and economic growth have positive effects on energy technology patents while energy price has a negative effect. However, the panel error correction models indicate that the cointegration relationship helps to promote economic growth, but it reduces R&D investment and energy price in the short term. Therefore, market-oriented measures including financial support and technical transformation policies for the development of low-carbon energy technologies, an effective energy price mechanism, especially the targeted fossil-fuel subsidies and their die away mode are vital in promoting China's energy technology innovation. (C) 2015 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