中国がクリーンテック移行で欧米を追い越した方法（2000〜2025年）：社会技術的移行理論と政治経済学を組み合わせて世界的な産業シフトを分析
How China overtook Europe and America in clean-tech transitions (2000–2025): Combining socio-technical transition and political economy theories to analyse global industrial shifts (原題)
Frank W. Geels
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、中国が太陽光、風力、EV、電池などのクリーンテック分野で欧米を追い越した要因を、社会技術的移行理論と政治経済学を統合した枠組みで比較分析する。欧米の制度が既存企業に政策アクセスを与え政策を弱めた一方、中国は政策立案者をロビイングから遮断し、新規参入者を活用して製造を急速に拡大したと論じる。
English
This paper explains China's dominance in clean-tech (solar, wind, EVs, batteries) by combining socio-technical transition and political economy theories. It argues that EU/US institutions gave incumbents policy access, weakening policies, while China shielded policymakers from lobbying, enabling earlier and more effective policies and rapid scaling of new entrants.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本のGX政策（GX推進戦略、産業政策）にとって、中国の産業政策と欧米の制度差の分析は、日本の政策設計や産業競争力強化に示唆を与える。特に、既存企業の影響力と新規参入の促進バランスは、日本のクリーンエネルギー産業戦略に参考になる。
In the global GX context
This paper contributes to global GX scholarship by providing a comparative framework linking political economy and socio-technical transitions, explaining divergent clean-tech outcomes. It offers insights for policymakers worldwide on how institutional design and interest group dynamics shape the pace of energy transitions.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a novel integrated framework for analyzing clean-tech transitions across countries, useful for comparative GX policy research.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights how incumbents can slow transitions, informing corporate strategy in navigating policy environments.
🏛政策担当者:Offers evidence on how institutional shielding from lobbying enables more effective clean-tech policies, relevant for policy design.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This paper offers a synthetic comparative explanation of China's dominance in clean-tech transitions (particularly solar-PV, wind, electric vehicles, batteries), investigating how it overtook the European Union and America, despite initially lagging. The explanation is guided by a new conceptual framework that combines insights from socio-technical transition theory (regarding transition phases, transition pathways, roles of new entrants and incumbent firms, policies as essential drivers, and feedback loops between technology, firms, and policymakers) and political economy theories (regarding economic interest groups, institutions, the state, and policies). Using secondary sources and multiple statistical datasets, the paper comparatively analyses China, the European Union and America in terms of: a) unfolding clean-tech transitions in electricity and auto-mobility, b) ‘grey’ and ‘green’ interest group strategies and activities, c) institutions and their influence on interest group access and state structuring, d) state strategic orientation and state capacity, and e) changing mixes of climate, energy, innovation, and industrial policies. Using these interacting causes, the paper identifies multiple reasons for varying clean-tech performance, including that European Union and American institutions provided incumbent firms with significant policy access, enabling them to shape policymaking, leading to weaker policies and slower transitions; that Chinese institutions shielded policymakers from incumbent firm lobbying, enabling them to develop earlier and more effective policies that were subsequently ratcheted up through adaptive policy learning and positive feedbacks; that Chinese policymakers unleashed new entrants and rapidly scaled clean-tech manufacturing, while EU and American policymakers mostly worked with incumbents (which enabled the latter to slow the pace of change).
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2026.104885first seen 2026-08-21 04:31:42
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。