TOWARDS AN INSTITUTIONS-THEORETIC FRAMEWORK COMPARING SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC DIFFUSION PATTERNS IN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES

Kwok L. Shum () and Chihiro Watanabe
Additional contact information
Kwok L. Shum: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Chihiro Watanabe: Tokyo Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Meguro-ku, Ookayama, Tokyo, Japan

International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), 2007, vol. 11, issue 04, 565-592

Abstract: This paper studies and compares the actual historic solar photovoltaic (PV) installation data in Japan and the United States and proposes two deployment models to account for the differences. Deployment, along with research, development and demonstration, constitutes what is known as the RD3(PCAST — President's Council of Advances in Science and Technology, United States) innovative chain of a new technology. Japan deploys PV focusing on the niche of utility grid-tied small-scale system (90 per cent of which is standardised roof-top residential PV system) using highly integrated value chain; this seems to draw upon her strong manufacturing culture and associated social technology and institutions for suppliers-dominated innovations.The United States deploys PV as abroadly defined innovationemphasising user-oriented customisation in both on and off grid, residential and industrial applications using small independent and intermediary system integrators. Empirical analysis of the diffusion patterns in the grid-tied small system category in respective contexts suggests that Japan's institutions seem to match her mass deployment strategy while the United States' combination of fragmented industry structure and diversity deployment gives rise to a complex diffusion pattern calling for continual institutional innovation or co-evolution. Our research, therefore, highlights that commercialisation of new technology or technical change, in general, is not an autonomous process and has strong institutionalunderpinnings. We formalise and generalise this "match" (Perez, 1983) argument in accordance with Nelson and Sampat's (2001) framework of physical technology vs social technology and their interactions. Some potential future extensions regarding utilities for this model are then highlighted.

Keywords: Renewable energy; social technology; physical technology; technology commercialisation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919607001874
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:11:y:2007:i:04:n:s1363919607001874

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S1363919607001874

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim) is currently edited by Joe Tidd

More articles in International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().