search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
54


EMISSIONS GAP REPORT 2018 – BRIDGING THE GAP: THE ROLE OF INNOVATION POLICY AND MARKET CREATION


Policy coordination is as important as attention to the whole landscape. For example, procurement policies cannot work unless the demanded products have been developed and demonstrated, but the dependence runs both ways: feedback effects from deployment and diffusion stimulate new product development and enable cost reductions through learning by doing (Lundvall, 1992; Freeman, 1995; Gallagher et al., 2012). This dependence also extends to consumer attitudes and their defi nition of the ‘good life’, with consumer demand for low-carbon products having the potential to drive innovation (Perez, 2017). By developing a coordinated policy that heeds these interdependencies, the public sector can not only fi x market failures, but also create and shape markets for new innovative technologies (Mazzucato, 2018b).


7.2.2 Patient strategic fi nance


Innovation policy across the innovation chain is most effective when it involves patient fi nance for direct investments from public organizations placed strategically at all stages of the innovation process. Private investors often perceive new technologies as risky and are unwilling to provide capital at scale, especially given the long lead times (CPI 2013; Schmidt, 2014; Mazzucato and Semieniuk, 2017). However, innovation feeds off patient fi nance that is looking for


long-term returns. As with any venture, such fi nance must also welcome risk and endure the failure of several projects (Mazzucato, 2018b). By being patient, such fi nance becomes strategic and supports innovation programmes until they reach their goal (Chan et al., 2017). The high-risk, long-term and capital-intensive character of the demonstration and deployment stages of innovation makes public investment in this area key.


The growth of renewable energy markets illustrates the importance of public strategic fi nance. Financing the bulk of the US$120 trillion needed to steer the energy sector onto a low-carbon path by 2050 (IEA and IRENA, 2017) will require considerable public investments. Individual projects are often very capital-intensive; even early-stage demonstrations in energy and manufacturing sectors may require investments exceeding US$1 billion, while the pathway to profi tability may take many years (Lester, 2014). Almost half of global investments in the renewable energy sector are now being fi nanced by public agencies and state-controlled enterprises, as private fi nancing has stagnated in absolute terms since around 2008.1


Public money has been disproportionately directed to high-risk projects, mobilizing, or ‘crowding in’2


additional private business and leaving lower-risk technologies such as onshore wind mainly to private actors, as fi gure 7.1 illustrates (Mazzucato and Semieniuk, 2018).


,


Figure 7.1: Average relative risk exposure on a 0–1 scale of public and private investors in renewable energy assets 2004–2014 globally, excluding investments made in China.


0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Mazzucato and Semieniuk (2018).


Public Risk Exposure Private Risk Exposure


1 The public share of fi nance in directed historical energy transitions was often even higher (Semieniuk and Mazzucato, 2018).


2 Crowding in is a word play on the idea of debt-fi nanced government spending replacing or ‘crowding out’ private investment. In innovative products, as this chapter shows, government fi nance (whether itself debt fi nanced or not) may be necessary to mobilise private fi nance in the fi rst place. (See also online appendix A.4 on state investment banks’ crowding in of private investors).


Risk exposure


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112