Rethinking Directed Technical Change: When Substitution Leads to Regret

Earlier research using the directed technical change framework argues that with the right mix of policies, governments can steer firms’ R&D efforts away from harmful technologies toward supposedly cleaner alternatives. This article puts that assumption to the test by examining the impact of the 2004 Stockholm Convention, which banned 12 highly toxic persistent organic pollutants (POPs), on the development of alternative chemical compounds. Does regulation truly drive innovation toward safer substitutes, or does it create new risks under a different guise? Our results show that rather than steering innovation towards safer alternatives, the Stockholm Convention has incentivized the development of patents containing s.c. “regrettable” chemicals – i.e. chemicals that, while not banned under the Convention, exhibit POP-like characteristics, particularly high toxicity and persistence. Our study suggests that a closer inspection of the substitute technologies is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of incentives set to replace dirty technologies with cleaner ones.

Publication Details

Journal
Econstor (Econstor)
Published
2025-06-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.57838/sssa/qpn5-bq09
Primary Topic
Regulation and Compliance Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Rethinking Directed Technical Change: When Substitution Leads to Regret

Econstor (Econstor)
Regulation and Compliance Studies
article

Rethinking Directed Technical Change: When Substitution Leads to Regret

article en

Abstract

Earlier research using the directed technical change framework argues that with the right mix of policies, governments can steer firms’ R&D efforts away from harmful technologies toward supposedly cleaner alternatives. This article puts that assumption to the test by examining the impact of the 2004 Stockholm Convention, which banned 12 highly toxic persistent organic pollutants (POPs), on the development of alternative chemical compounds. Does regulation truly drive innovation toward safer substitutes, or does it create new risks under a different guise? Our results show that rather than steering innovation towards safer alternatives, the Stockholm Convention has incentivized the development of patents containing s.c. “regrettable” chemicals – i.e. chemicals that, while not banned under the Convention, exhibit POP-like characteristics, particularly high toxicity and persistence. Our study suggests that a closer inspection of the substitute technologies is crucial to understanding the effectiveness of incentives set to replace dirty technologies with cleaner ones.

Econstor (Econstor)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Regulation and Compliance Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.