IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v16y2023i27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mission Impossible: The Influence of Incumbent Industries on Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy Targeting Carbon Lock-In

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Hastings-Simon

    (University of Calgary)

  • Eliot Tretter

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

In this paper, we explore how the power wielded by regional incumbents has impacted subnational innovation agendas. Our findings suggest that the design of mission-oriented innovation policies should be more attentive to regional innovation policies and their relationship to how innovation may serve to bolster incumbents and not undermine them. We use a case-study of innovation in fossil fuels. Recently, innovation policy literature has explored innovation policy and global climate as a major topic. On the one hand, carbon lock-in has been used to explain why there has been such difficulty in reducing carbon emissions, in many cases, despite an increasing emphasis of mission-innovation policies. On the other hand, mission-innovation policies are believed to be a key to the development of disruptive innovations that could break this carbon intensive path dependency. Although the two literatures explore the same problem, there could be more integration. While carbon lock-in is being considered in the mission- innovation literature, it nevertheless has been largely overlooked at the mission-setting stage. On the other hand, the lock-in literature has tended to overlook the findings of mission-oriented innovation literature in offering solutions, which suggests that there is a more productive role for mission-oriented innovations in breaking free of previous constraints to serve in the low-carbon energy transition. To make our case, we argue it is important to distinguish among the various impacts disruptive innovations have on the market shares of incumbents’. We propose the following three schema: new market, market rewarding and market destroying. By variegating the potential impact of innovations, we suggest that mission-oriented innovation polices may be designed to only support certain types of innovations that do not directly undermine the market share of incumbents. Using a detailed case study of the Province of Alberta, Canada, we then explore the role of the province’s mission-oriented policy in the development of technology to produce the Canadian oil sands. The case study illustrates how incumbents influenced the establishment and direction of the mission’s goal. Shifts in incumbency opposition toward the province’s mission-oriented innovation policy coincided with the changing impact of the innovation from being market destroying to market rewarding. We suggest that future research should be more attentive to the role of incumbents in influencing mission-oriented innovation policy and the importance of their influence at the mission-setting stage. Furthermore, we suggest that to meet the grand challenge of addressing climate change through mission-oriented innovation policies, these policies must be designed to break free of these institutional constraints.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Hastings-Simon & Eliot Tretter, 2023. "Mission Impossible: The Influence of Incumbent Industries on Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy Targeting Carbon Lock-In," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 16(27), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:16:y:2023:i:27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/EFL54-IncumbIndustrCarbonLockin.HastingsSimon.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kariem Soliman, 2021. "Are Industrial Robots a new GPT? A Panel Study of Nine European Countries with Capital and Quality-adjusted Industrial Robots as Drivers of Labour Productivity Growth," EIIW Discussion paper disbei307, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    2. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    3. Çağatay Bircan & Ralph De Haas, 2020. "The Limits of Lending? Banks and Technology Adoption across Russia," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(2), pages 536-609.
    4. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    5. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2015. "Why do we need theory and metrics of technology upgrading?," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 134, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    6. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    7. Backes-Gellner Uschi & Lehnert Patrick, 2023. "Berufliche Bildung als Innovationstreiber: Ein lange vernachlässigtes Forschungsfeld," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 85-97, April.
    8. Jess Benhabib & Jesse Perla & Christopher Tonetti, 2021. "Reconciling Models of Diffusion and Innovation: A Theory of the Productivity Distribution and Technology Frontier," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2261-2301, September.
    9. John T. Dalton & Andrew J. Logan, 2022. "Teaching and learning Schumpeter: A dialogue between professor and student," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 235-256, June.
    10. Salome Baslandze, 2015. "The Role of the IT Revolution in Knowledge Diffusion, Innovation and Reallocation," 2015 Meeting Papers 1488, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. repec:iab:iabfme:201707(en is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    13. Sina T. Ates & Felipe E. Saffie, 2013. "Project Heterogeneity and Growth: The Impact of Selection," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-011, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    14. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    15. Yang Qi & Mingyue Gao & Haoyu Wang & Huijie Ding & Jianxu Liu & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2023. "Does Marketization Promote High-Quality Agricultural Development in China?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-28, June.
    16. Guidi, Francesco & Solomon, Edna & Trushin, Eshref & Ugur, Mehmet, 2015. "Inverted-U relationship between innovation and survival: Evidence from firm-level UK data," EconStor Preprints 110896, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    17. A. Mantovi, 2016. "Stochastic and path dependence effects in the diffusion of ideas," Economics Department Working Papers 2016-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    18. Douglas Hanley, 2014. "Innovation, Technological Interdependence, and Economic Growth," Working Paper 533, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2014.
    19. Marc J. Melitz & Stephen J. Redding, 2021. "Trade and innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp1777, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Ufuk Akcigit & Salomé Baslandze & Francesca Lotti, 2023. "Connecting to Power: Political Connections, Innovation, and Firm Dynamics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(2), pages 529-564, March.
    21. Cátia Rosário & Celeste Varum & Anabela Botelho, 2024. "The Role of Public Incentives in Promoting Innovation: An Analysis of Recurrently Supported Companies," Economies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:16:y:2023:i:27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.