Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Energy innovation funding and institutions in major economies

Nature Energy volume 7, pages 876–885 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Accelerating energy innovation for decarbonization hinges on public investment in research, development and demonstration (RD&D). Here we examine the evolution and variation of public energy RD&D funding and institutions and associated drivers across eight major economies, including China and India (2000–2018). The share of new clean energy grew at the expense of nuclear, while the fossil fuel RD&D share remained stable. Governments created new institutions but experimented only marginally with novel designs that bridge lab to market to accelerate commercialization. In theory, crisis, cooperation and competition can be drivers of change. We find that cooperation in Mission Innovation is associated with punctuated change in clean-energy RD&D growth, and clean tech competition with China is associated with gradual change. Stimulus spending after the financial crisis, instead, boosted fossil and nuclear only. Looking ahead, global coopetition—the interplay of RD&D cooperation and clean tech competition—offers opportunities for accelerating energy innovation to meet climate goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic overview of study.
Fig. 2: Percentage of RD&D funding in fossil fuels, nuclear and clean energy in the M6 plus China country group.
Fig. 3: Volatility of RD&D funding by technology category.
Fig. 4: Timeline of new and repurposed energy innovation institutions by cluster.
Fig. 5: Clean-energy leadership by country.
Fig. 6: Funding and institutional characteristics by national models as they relate to decarbonization.
Fig. 7: Evolution of RD&D funding by country and of innovation institutions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

We use two datasets: the first is an energy RD&D funding dataset that includes bottom-up data for China and India and IEA countries and the second is an inventory of 57 public energy innovation institutions related to decarbonization across the M8. Funding data for IEA countries (France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, United Kingdom and United States) are available from the IEA Energy Technologies RD&D database. Funding data for China and India are available as Supplementary Data 1. The institutional data are not currently publicly available due to additional ongoing analysis of the original dataset by the authors but are available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Energy Technology Perspectives 2020: Special Report on Clean Energy Innovation (International Energy Agency, 2020).

  2. Cunliff, C. & Hart, D. M. Global Energy Innovation Index: National Contributions to the Global Clean Energy Innovation System (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, 2019).

  3. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R. & Martin, B. R. Technology policy and global warming: why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Res. Policy 39, 1011–1023 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marangoni, G. & Tavoni, M. The clean energy R&D strategy for 2 °C. Clim. Change Econ. 5, 1440003 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anadon, L. D., Baker, E. & Bosetti, V. Integrating uncertainty into public energy research and development decisions. Nat. Energy 2, 17071 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nemet, G. F., Zipperer, V. & Kraus, M. The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects. Energy Policy 119, 154–167 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anadon, L. D., Bunn, M. & Narayanamurti, V. Transforming US Energy Innovation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  8. Grübler, A., Nakićenović, N. & Victor, D. G. Modeling technological change: implications for the global environment. Annu. Rev. Energy Env. 24, 545–569 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (National Academies Press, 2007).

  10. Eom, J. et al. The impact of near-term climate policy choices on technology and emission transition pathways. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 73–88 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nemet, G. How Solar Energy Became Cheap: A Model for Low-Carbon Innovation (Routledge, 2019).

  12. Victor, D. G., Geels, F. W. & Sharpe, S. Accelerating the Low Carbon Transition: The Case for Stronger, More Targeted and Coordinated International Action (Brookings Institution, 2019).

  13. Andonova, L., Castro, P. & Chelminski, K. in Governing Climate Change (eds Jordan, A. et al.) Ch. 15 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  14. Lewis, J. I. Green Innovation in China: China’s Wind Power Industry and the Global Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy (Columbia Univ. Press, 2012).

  15. Meckling, J. & Allan, B. B. The evolution of ideas in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 434–438 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Malhotra, A. & Schmidt, T. S. Accelerating low-carbon innovation. Joule 4, 2259–2267 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Larsen, K. et al. It’s Not Easy Being Green: Stimulus Spending in the World’s Major Economies (Rhodium Group, 2020).

  18. Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C. M. Theories of the Policy Process (Westview Press, 2014).

  19. Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. Cooperation and discord in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 570–575 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang, F. et al. From fossil to low carbon: the evolution of global public energy innovation. WIREs Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.734 (2021).

  21. Anadón, L. D. Missions-oriented RD&D institutions in energy between 2000 and 2010: a comparative analysis of China, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Res. Policy 41, 1742–1756 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E. & Zysman, J. Winning coalitions for climate policy: green industrial policy builds support for carbon regulation. Science 249, 1170–1171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chan, G., Goldstein, A. P., Bin-Nun, A., Anadon, L. D. & Narayanamurti, V. Six principles for energy innovation. Nature 552, 25–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guellec, D. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D. Econ. Innovation New Technol. 12, 225–243 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cohen, L. R. & Noll, R. G. The Technology Pork Barrel (Brookings Institution Press, 2002).

  26. Wilson, C. et al. Granular technologies to accelerate decarbonization. Science 368, 36–39 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Breznitz, D., Ornston, D. & Samford, S. Mission critical: the ends, means, and design of innovation agencies. Ind. Corp. Change 27, 883–896 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. OECD, World Bank & UN Environment Financing Climate Futures: Rethinking Infrastructure (OECD Publishing, 2018).

  29. Narayanamurti, V. & Odumosu, T. Cycles of Invention and Discovery (Harvard Univ. Press, 2016).

  30. Unruh, G. C. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817–830 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lundvall, B.-Å. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Vol. 2 (Anthem Press, 2010).

  32. Nelson, R. R. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford Univ. Press, 1993).

  33. Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).

  34. Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 32, 277–300 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Popp, D. Induced innovation and energy prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 160–180 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Grubb, M. et al. Induced innovation in energy technologies and systems: a review of evidence and potential implications for CO2 mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abde07 (2021).

  37. Probst, B., Touboul, S., Glachant, M. & Dechezleprêtre, A. Global trends in the invention and diffusion of climate change mitigation technologies. Nat. Energy 6, 1077–1086 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Commodity Price Data (World Bank, 2022); https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets

  39. Bush, V. Science, the Endless Frontier (Ayer Company Publishers, 1995).

  40. Gross, D. P. & Sampat, B. N. Inventing the Endless Frontier: The Effects of the World War II Research Effort on Post-War Innovation (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).

  41. Myllyvirta, L. Sino–U.S. competition is good for climate change efforts. Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/united-states-china-competition-climate-change/ (2021).

  42. Erickson, A. S. & Collins, G. Competition with China can save the planet. Foreign Aff. 100, 136–149 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J. & Williams, H. A toolkit of policies to promote innovation. J. Econ. Perspect. 33, 163–184 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. German Federal Government’s National Electromobility Development Plan (Bundesregierung, 2009); https://www.bmvi.de/blaetterkatalog/catalogs/219176/pdf/complete.pdf

  45. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Progress on Competitiveness of Clean Energy Technologies (European Commission, 2021).

  46. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  47. Sivaram, V., Cunliff, C., Hart, D., Friedmann, J. & Sandalow, D. Energizing America (Columbia Univ. SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy, 2020).

  48. Gates, B. How to Avoid a Climate Disaster (Random House, 2021).

  49. Mazzucato, M. Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (Harper Business, 2021).

  50. Nahm, J. M., Miller, S. M. & Urpelainen, J. G20’s US$14-trillion economic stimulus reneges on emissions pledges. Nature 603, 28–31 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Atkinson, R. D. Why the United States Needs a National Advanced Industry and Technology Agency (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2021).

  52. Dutz, M. A., Yevgeny, K., Esperanza, L. & Dirk, P. Making Innovation Policy Work: Learning from Experimentation (OECD Publishing, 2014).

  53. Sabel, C. F. & Victor, D. G. Making the Paris Process More Effective: A New Approach to Policy Coordination on Global Climate Change (The Stanley Foundation, 2016).

  54. Hart, D. M. The Impact of China’s Production Surge on Innovation in the Global Solar Photovoltaics Industry (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2020).

  55. Carraro, C. Clubs, R&D, and climate finance: incentives for ambitious GHG emission reductions. FEEM Policy Brief No. 01 (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 2017).

  56. Koester, S., Hart, D. M. & Sly, G. Unworkable Solution: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms and Global Climate Innovation (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2021).

  57. Main Science and Technology Indicators Data (OECD, 2022); https://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm

  58. Energy Technology RD&D Budgets. October 2021 Edition (International Energy Agency, 2021).

  59. Dasgupta, S., De Cian, E. & Verdolini, E. in The Political Economy of Clean Energy Transitions, Vol. 123 (eds Arent, D. et al.) 123–143 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  60. IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  61. China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2020); http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjcbw/202103/t20210329_1815746.html

  62. Union Budgets, Expenditure Profile 2019–2020 (Ministry of Power, Government of India, 2019); https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2019-20/doc/eb/stat1.pdf

  63. Witt, M. A. et al. Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: a taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research. Socio-Econ. Rev. 16, 5–38 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Skovgaard, J., Ferrari, S. S. & Knaggård, Å. Mapping and clustering the adoption of carbon pricing policies: what polities price carbon and why? Clim. Policy 19, 1173–1185 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tobin, P., Schmidt, N. M., Tosun, J. & Burns, C. Mapping states’ Paris climate pledges: analysing targets and groups at COP 21. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 11–21 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge funding from the Hellman Fellows Fund; the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies; the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project accession number 1020688; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, grant number 2019-9339, regranted through the California–China Climate Institute; the China Scholarship Council; and the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 under grant agreement number 730403 (INNOPATHS). We thank J. Guy and S. Vogel for comments on a draft manuscript. We thank N. Goedeking for research assistance, S. Kolesnikov for assistance in developing the methodology behind collecting public energy RD&D funding data for India and several colleagues for Korean language assistance. We are grateful to J. Sauer for assistance with the Freedom of Information requests for German public energy RD&D funding data.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Clara Galeazzi, Esther Shears.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Jonas Meckling

  2. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Clara Galeazzi & Laura Diaz Anadon

  3. Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Clara Galeazzi, Tong Xu & Laura Diaz Anadon

  4. Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Esther Shears

  5. Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Esther Shears

  6. Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen, China

    Tong Xu

Authors
  1. Jonas Meckling
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clara Galeazzi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esther Shears
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tong Xu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Diaz Anadon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.M. and L.D.A. conceived the study. J.M., C.G., E.S. and L.D.A. developed the methodology. C.G. and E.S. led data collection, with T.X. collecting data for China and J.M. and L.D.A. guiding data collection. C.G. and E.S. led data analysis, with J.M. and L.D.A. supporting analysis. J.M. wrote the manuscript, with C.G., E.S. and L.D.A. editing. J.M. administered the project.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jonas Meckling or Laura Diaz Anadon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks David Hart, Eugenie Dugoua and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Data 1

Funding data for China and India.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meckling, J., Galeazzi, C., Shears, E. et al. Energy innovation funding and institutions in major economies. Nat Energy 7, 876–885 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01117-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01117-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing