Beyond the North-South divide: The political economy and multi-level governance of international low-carbon technology transfer in China

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.07.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The rise of emerging economies challenges the conventional understanding of ILTT.

  • Actors in emerging economies have become more assertive.

  • Political-economic and multi-level governance processes are important.

  • These processes shape partnership building and technology adaptation of ILTT.

Abstract

The rapid rise of emerging economies challenges the conventional understanding of international low-carbon technology transfer (ILTT) from a North-South perspective. Rather than acting like passive recipients of foreign investment and technology, actors in emerging economies have become more assertive, seeking control over the processes of ILTT. To understand this emerging trend, this paper conceptualizes ILTT as political-economic and multi-level governance processes involving two key elements—partnership building and technology adaptation. The empirical findings, drawing from a case study on the transfer of the passive house concept from Germany to China, show that the priorities of domestic rather than foreign actors have defined the scope for collaboration and the purpose of the technology, resulting in the adoption of a version of the technology that best serves domestic political-economic interests. These findings suggest that ILTT is becoming increasingly complex geographically, which opens new perspectives into the spatial dimension of socio-technical transitions.

Introduction

The international diffusion of innovative low-carbon technologies is generally understood through a Global North-South divide—with donors being developed countries and recipients developing countries, which are perceived to be technologically backward and with lower capacities for technology innovation (Hayashi, 2018; Kirchherr and Urban, 2018; Lema and Lema, 2012; van Welie et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2015). The logic behind international low-carbon technology transfer (ILTT) is closely linked to the notion of leapfrog development, which implies that developing countries can rely on technology transfer to avoid the carbon-intensive phases of development that characterize the processes of wealth generation in the Global North (Liddle and Huntington, 2021). ILTT is also underpinned by the concepts of climate justice and just transition, which demand that developed countries, responsible for historical carbon emissions, help developing countries’ transition towards sustainability and low-carbon futures (Setyowati, 2021; Wang and Lo, 2021). Therein, ILTT comes to represent a crucial process for the advancement of sustainability transitions in developing countries (Eppinger et al., 2021; Wieczorek et al., 2015). These logics of ILTT manifest in international climate regimes, such as the Clean Development Mechanism and the Green Climate Fund, which encourage the North-South dispersion of climate-friendly technologies (Gandenberger et al., 2016; Lema and Lema, 2013; Ockwell and Byrne, 2016; Popp, 2011). Mechanisms to achieve other key international policy objectives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, similarly rely on the logic of North-South technology transfer and knowledge sharing (Hayashi, 2018; Kirchherr and Urban, 2018; Lema and Lema, 2012; van Welie et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2015).

Notions of a neat divide within the international political system—between developed and developing, First and Third world, donor and recipient—have been progressively crumbling for decades (Zoellick, 2010). International relations scholars no longer view the global landscape in such dichotomous terms, but have instead begun to speak of the consolidation of a multipolar world order (De Keersmaeker, 2015; Zoellick, 2010). In particular, the rise of emerging economies, such as China and India, have challenged these conventional perspectives, including ideas on North-South technology transfer (Gosens et al., 2020). With their rapidly developing markets and technology innovation capabilities, emerging economies may potentially drive the emergence of new forms and dynamics of ILTT that are fundamentally different from those long observed (or assumed) in global patterns of technology transfer (Chen et al., 2020; Prud'homme et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2015). In particular, emerging economies have become a site of exceptional attraction to foreign businesses that intend to capture the booming domestic markets, which give them leverage over the processes and outcomes of technology transfer (Sharma and Ambrammal, 2015). As such, emerging economies should no longer be conceived as passive recipients of technology from the Global North but as active actors with the intent and capability to influence ILTT.

These new dynamics in ILTT have become increasingly visible in China, which has quickly developed into a leading economy and a technological powerhouse, especially in the areas of clean and renewable energy (Liu and Lo, 2021). This paper aims to critically examine ILTT from a case study on the transfer of the passive house (PH) concept into the built environment in an eco-city in China. This paper develops a theoretical perspective that goes beyond the functionalist frame by focusing on issues of multi-level governance and political economy (Byrne et al., 2012; Wang and Lo, 2022). Technology transfer occurs as part of the interaction between actors at different levels of governance within processes of socio-industrial experimentation (Kirchherr and Urban, 2018; Lema and Lema, 2012; Shove, 1998). Such interactions are embedded in specific political-economic contexts rather than purely apolitical settings (Bulkeley et al., 2015; Evans and Karvonen, 2011; Hodson and Marvin, 2010; Marvin and Silver, 2016). It is, therefore, important to examine how technology transfer takes place in specific political-economic contexts and is shaped by multi-level interactions between heterogenous actors (Johnston, 2003; Neo and Pow, 2015).

We propose two interrelated dimensions through which the political economy and multi-level governance of ILTT can be understood. The first dimension focuses on the building and dissolution of partnerships between foreign and domestic actors, which lays the foundation for technology transfer. Partnership building is an important process in ILTT because meaningful transfers cannot occur without long-term and stable cooperation from both sides (Lema and Lema, 2012; Urban, 2018). Therefore, partnerships between foreign and domestic actors are not only the first form of interaction occurring in a technology transfer but are also the sites where differences in perspectives and values can arise. Thus, it is crucial to examine the processes of partnership building. The second dimension focuses on the adaptation of foreign technologies. Technology transfer is a dynamic process in which foreign technologies are embedded in local socio-spatial contexts. Such technology adaptation can be social (the alignment of technology in a social context and its ability to meet social needs), economic (profit generation and cost-saving), and technological (compatibility with pre-existing technological assemblages).

The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 elaborates on the concepts of partnership building and technology adaptation. Sections 3 and 4 introduce the background and methodology of this study, respectively. Sections 5 and 6 present the empirical analysis. Section 7 concludes the paper with a discussion of the implications of the emerging economies context for ILTT. This includes reflection on new entry points to develop spatial interpretations on socio-technical transitions.

Section snippets

Partnership building

Conventional notions of technology transfer portrayed the process as a simple operation comprising a one-way transfer of knowledge. This understanding has evolved to include models of interactive knowledge transfer and co-production (Švarc and Dabić, 2019). Recent studies are also more attuned to tacit knowledge, which is not explicitly captured through hardware transactions but absorbed through long-term technological cooperation (Lema and Lema, 2012; Urban, 2018). These shifts in focus have

Background

The concepts of partnership building and technology adaptation serve to illuminate how political-economic and governance interactions shape ILTT. A case study of ILTT was undertaken to operationalize the concepts. The case study was conducted at the Sino-German Ecopark (hereafter Ecopark), which is a newly built eco-city on the outskirts of Qingdao. Eco-cities have become important sites for low-carbon technological innovation (Cugurullo, 2018; Lo et al., 2020; Mullins and Shwayri, 2016). They

Data collection and analysis

Fieldwork at the Ecopark was conducted between July and September 2020. Data collection is becoming increasingly difficult in China, and personal connections are often crucial (Svensson, 2006). We began preparing for fieldwork in 2018 by building connections, especially with the local academics and stakeholders at the Ecopark. We were able to contact the SGEAC and informed them about our research aims and protocol. The SGEAC invited the first author to join the secretary department as an

Partnership building

Sustained partnerships are a prerequisite for meaningful technology transfer. However, in the Ecopark, the partnership involved in the technology transfer of PH was fraught with challenges, characterized by frequent changes in actors, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of key foreign players. Major foreign actors such as the RoA, WFP Architekten, and PHI either abruptly withdrew or gradually ceased involvement. In this section, we show that the stuttered cooperation between the German and

Technology adaptation

From our observations, the PH concept has been transformed and localized in three ways: (1) socially, by focusing on the development of luxury houses to attract wealthy people and investors; (2) economically, by emphasizing short-term profits of the real estate sector; and (3) technologically, toward a strong preference for low-hanging-fruits characterized by technological proximity.

Conclusions

The diffusion of innovative technological solutions from developed to developing countries through ILTT is recognized as a crucial component for mitigating climate change (Baker and Sovacool, 2017; Ockwell and Mallett, 2012; Ockwell et al., 2008; Rai et al., 2014). At the same time, ILTT has become a fiercely debated and controversial issue in the context of urgent climate action and rising demands for climate justice (Xu and Zhang, 2022). Critiques of ILTT have typically focused on the unequal

Declaration of Competing Interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Early Career Scheme (22604217) of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong.

References (104)

  • E. Eppinger et al.

    Sustainability transitions in manufacturing: the role of intellectual property

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2021)
  • W. Feist et al.

    Re-inventing air heating: convenient and comfortable within the frame of the passive house concept

    Energy Build.

    (2005)
  • T. Forsyth

    Promoting the “development dividend” of climate technology transfer: can cross-sector partnerships help?

    World Dev.

    (2007)
  • F.W. Geels

    From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory

    Res. Policy

    (2004)
  • F.W. Geels

    Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective

    Res. Policy

    (2010)
  • F.W. Geels

    Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: developing an inter-disciplinary triple embeddedness framework

    Res. Policy

    (2014)
  • J. Gosens et al.

    China's role in the next phase of the energy transition: contributions to global niche formation in the concentrated solar power sector

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.

    (2020)
  • Y. Gu et al.

    Innovation orientations, external partnerships, and start-ups' performance of low-carbon ventures

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2018)
  • M.E. Hacker et al.

    Navigating institutional complexity in socio-technical transitions

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.

    (2021)
  • D. Hayashi

    Knowledge flow in low-carbon technology transfer: a case of India's wind power industry

    Energy Policy

    (2018)
  • M. Hodson et al.

    Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were?

    Res. Policy

    (2010)
  • P. Huang et al.

    Interdependence between urban processes and energy transitions: the dimensions of urban energy transitions (DUET) framework

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.

    (2018)
  • A. Kaklauskas et al.

    Passive house model for quantitative and qualitative analyses and its intelligent system

    Energy Build.

    (2012)
  • C. Karakosta et al.

    Technology transfer through climate change: setting a sustainable energy pattern

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2010)
  • J. Kirchherr et al.

    Technology transfer and cooperation for low carbon energy technology: analysing 30 years of scholarship and proposing a research agenda

    Energy Policy

    (2018)
  • A. Lema et al.

    Technology transfer in the clean development mechanism: insights from wind power

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2013)
  • B. Liddle et al.

    There's technology improvement, but is there economy-wide energy leapfrogging? A country panel analysis

    World Dev.

    (2021)
  • M. Liu et al.

    The territorial politics of urban expansion: administrative annexation and land acquisition

    Cities

    (2022)
  • Z. Liu et al.

    Coupling national geo-political economic strategies and the belt and road initiative: the China-Belarus great stone industrial park

    Polit. Geogr.

    (2021)
  • Z. Liu et al.

    A comprehensive analysis on definitions, development, and policies of nearly zero energy buildings in China

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2019)
  • K. Lo

    China's low-carbon city initiatives: the implementation gap and the limits of the target responsibility system

    Habitat Int.

    (2014)
  • K. Lo

    Authoritarian environmentalism, just transition, and the tension between environmental protection and social justice in China's forestry reform

    For. Policy Econ.

    (2021)
  • K. Lo

    Can authoritarian regimes achieve just energy transition? Evidence from China's solar photovoltaic poverty alleviation initiative

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2021)
  • K. Lo et al.

    Co-benefits, contradictions, and multi-level governance of low-carbon experimentation: leveraging solar energy for sustainable development in China

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2019)
  • D.G. Ockwell et al.

    Key policy considerations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to developing countries

    Energy Policy

    (2008)
  • D. Prud’homme et al.

    Forced technology transfer” policies: workings in China and strategic implications

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2018)
  • V. Rai et al.

    International low carbon technology transfer: do intellectual property regimes matter?

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2014)
  • J. Sawulski et al.

    Technological innovation system analysis in a follower country–the case of offshore wind in Poland

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.

    (2019)
  • A.B. Setyowati

    Mitigating inequality with emissions? Exploring energy justice and financing transitions to low carbon energy in Indonesia

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2021)
  • E. Shove

    Gaps, barriers and conceptual chasms: theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings

    Energy Policy

    (1998)
  • A. Smith et al.

    What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability

    Res. Policy

    (2012)
  • F. Urban

    China's rise: challenging the North-South technology transfer paradigm for climate change mitigation and low carbon energy

    Energy Policy

    (2018)
  • F. Urban et al.

    Firm-level technology transfer and technology cooperation for wind energy between Europe, China and India: from North–South to South–North cooperation?

    Energy Sustain. Dev.

    (2015)
  • D. van Doren et al.

    Learning within local government to promote the scaling-up of low-carbon initiatives: a case study in the city of Copenhagen

    Energy Policy

    (2020)
  • M.J. van Welie et al.

    Towards sustainable urban basic services in low-income countries: a technological innovation system analysis of sanitation value chains in Nairobi

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.

    (2019)
  • A.G. Walder et al.

    Public housing into private assets: wealth creation in urban China

    Soc. Sci. Res.

    (2014)
  • R. Wang et al.

    A three-stage optimization methodology for envelope design of passive house considering energy demand, thermal comfort and cost

    Energy

    (2020)
  • X. Wang et al.

    Just transition: a conceptual review

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2021)
  • X. Wang et al.

    Political economy of just transition: disparate impact of coal mine closure on state-owned and private coal workers in Inner Mongolia, China

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2022)
  • A.J. Wieczorek et al.

    Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: a typology and the case of solar photovoltaic energy in India

    Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.

    (2015)
  • Cited by (12)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text