Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:19:20.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When and how can advocacy groups promote new technologies? Conditions and strategies for effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2013

Sung Eun Kim  and
Johannes Urpelainen
Sung Eun Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Columbia University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Johannes Urpelainen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Columbia University, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When and how can advocacy groups influence the diffusion of new technologies, such as wind power? We examine the relationship between two different strategies that advocacy groups can adopt: political lobbying and campaigns aimed at potential end users of the new technology. Our game-theoretic analysis shows that without the opportunity to engage in political lobbying, end user campaigns by an advocacy group have the counterproductive effect of reducing the government's incentive to subsidise the new technology. Instead of supporting the advocacy group's campaigning, the government free rides on the social movement's campaigning efforts. While political lobbying cannot prevent free riding, it increases the government's incentive to subsidise the new technology, and thus increases the advocacy group's payoff. These findings suggest that advocacy groups can promote technology diffusion if they can effectively deploy a dual strategy of political lobbying and end user campaigning.

Keywords

advocacy groupsend user campaignpolitical lobbyingtechnology diffusion
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , December 2013 , pp. 259 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. W.Snidal, D. (2010) International Regulation Without International Government: Improving IO Performance Through Orchestration. Review of International Organizations 5(3): 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, S.Sened, I. (1993) The Role of Lobbyists: Entrepreneurs with Two Audiences. American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 834–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. B. (1989) Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns and Lock-in by Historical Events. Economic Journal 99(1): 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. (1993) Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes. American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 799–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, D. P. (2001) Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10(1): 7–45.Google Scholar
Baron, D. P. (2009) A Positive Theory of Moral Management, Social Pressure, and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 18(1): 7–43.Google Scholar
Beise, M. (2004) Lead Markets: Country-Specific Drivers of the Global Diffusion of Innovations. Research Policy 33(6–7): 997–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, S.Neumayer, E. (2005) Environmental Pressure Group Strength and Air Pollution: An Empirical Analysis. Ecological Economics 55(4): 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cashore, B. (2002) Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority. Governance 15(4): 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R.Gunby, P. (1996) Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-in and Pest Control Strategies. Economic Journal 106(436): 521–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R. J. (1994) The Green Rainbow: Environmental Interest Groups in Western Europe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. J.Rohrschneider, R. (2003) The Environmental Movement and the Modes of Political Action. Comparative Political Studies 36(7): 743–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Río, P.Unruh, G. C. (2007) Overcoming the Lock-Out of Renewable Energy Technologies in Spain: The Cases of Wind and Solar Electricity. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11(7): 1498–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwerth, K. (2005) The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Commission on Dams? Global Governance 11(1): 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwerth, K. (2008) Private Transnational Governance and the Developing World: A Comparative Perspective. International Studies Quarterly 52(3): 607–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, R. (2003) Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring Links. Global Environmental Politics 3(2): 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, T. J.Gilligan, T. W. (2001) Saints and Markets: Activists and the Supply of Credence Goods. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10(1): 149–171.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M.Helpman, E. (1994) Protection for Sale. American Economic Review 84(4): 833–850.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M.Helpman, E. (2001) Special Interest Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grübler, A., Nakićenović, N.Victor, D. G. (1999) Dynamics of Energy Technologies and Global Change. Energy Policy 27(5): 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2004) Overlapping Public and Private Governance: Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime? Global Environmental Politics 4(2): 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2008) Accountability Arrangements in Non-State Standards Organizations: Instrumental Design and Imitation. Organization 15(4): 563–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, A. T. (2008) Lobbying Friends and Foes in Climate Policy: The Case of Business and Environmental Interest Groups in the European Union. Energy Policy 36(8): 2964–2972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. L.Deardorff, A. V. (2006) Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review 100(1): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heymann, M. (1998) Signs of Hubris: The Shaping of Wind Technology Styles in Germany, Denmark, and the United States, 1940–1990. Technology and Culture 39(4): 641–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. (2008) Pioneer Countries and the Global Diffusion of Environmental Innovations: Theses From the Viewpoint of Ecological Modernisation Theory. Global Environmental Change 18(3): 360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, M. E.Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, N. O., Revesz, R. L.Stavins, R. N. (1998) The Choice of Regulatory Instruments in Environmental Policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22(2): 313–367.Google Scholar
Laird, F. N.Stefes, C. (2009) The Diverging Paths of German and United States Policies for Renewable Energy: Sources of Difference. Energy Policy 37(7): 2619–2629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanjouw, J. O.Mody, A. (1996) Innovation and the International Diffusion of Environmentally Responsive Technology. Research Policy 25(4): 549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipp, J. (2007) Lessons for Effective Renewable Electricity Policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 35(11): 5481–5495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, T. P.Yin, H. (2010) Why Do States Adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards?: An Empirical Investigation. Energy Journal 31(3): 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelowa, A. (2005) The German Wind Energy Lobby: How to Promote Costly Technological Change Successfully. European Environment 15: 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemet, G. F.Kammen, D. M. (2007) U.S. Energy Research and Development: Declining Investment, Increasing Need, and the Feasibility of Expansion. Energy Policy 35(1): 746–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, D. (2003) Outsourcing Regulation: Analyzing Nongovernmental Systems of Labor Standards and Monitoring. Policy Studies Journal 31(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattberg, P. H. (2005) The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and Potential of Private Forest Governance. Journal of Environment and Development 14: 356–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, Y.Ramos-Real, F. J. (2009) The Public Promotion of Wind Energy in Spain from the Transaction Costs Perspective 1986–2007. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(5): 1058–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakash, A.Potoski, M. (2006) The Voluntary Environmentalists: Green Clubs, ISO 14001, and Voluntary Environmental Regulations. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. (1998) Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization 52(3): 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabe, B. (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Evolving Politics of American Climate Change Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Shaiko, R. G. (1999) Voices and Echoes for the Environment: Public Interest Representation in the 1990s and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Vasi, I. B. (2011) Winds of Change: The Environmental Movement and the Global Development of the Wind Energy Industry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, D. (2008) Private Global Business Regulation. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wapner, P. (1995) Politics Beyond the State: Environmental Activism in World Civic Politics. World Politics 47(3): 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarco-Jasso, H. (2005) Public-Private Partnerships: A Multidimensional Model for Contracting. International Journal of Public Policy 1(1–2): 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar