En Ener ergy gy Ef Efficiency iciency an and d Ins nstitut titutiona ional l Qu Qual ality ity: : Th The r e rol ole e of of en ener ergy gy ef efficiency iciency go gover ernance nance ECO2016-76818-C3-2-P (THUIT-II) FPU2016/02450 Josue sue Barrera rera Santana tana Gu Gustav tavo o A. . Marrero ero Díaz íaz Franc ncisco sco J. . Ramos mos Real
OVERVIE RVIEW ▸ Introduction ▸ Index construction and theoretical support ▸ Results ▸ Application ▸ Concluding remarks and further research 2
1. Introduction
OVERVIEW Every policy, plan, programme or measure may be compromised by Intro ntrodu duction ion one or several of these factors: 1.1. . Motivat ivation ion 1.2. Aim Regulation Market Corruption failures failures Lack of co- Lack of Rent seeking ordination transparency Since these failures do not allow for efficient balances, public intervention is needed: GOVER VERNANC NANCE have a relevant role Governan ernance ce Politi itics, society iety and and economic nomics Its effect is well-documented. There exist “Ability of an indices ices to assess this kind of governance. administration to generate rules and EE EE issues ues enforce them in order to achieve particular Little is known about the relationship objectives” between governance and EE (EE EE gov governanc ernance) due to the absence of any Fukuyama, 2013. quality indicator. 4
2. Index construction and theoretical support
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. 1. Theor eoret etical ical supp pport ort 2.2. Index construction “ According to IEA (2010), EE governance is the combination of the institutional and co-ordination arrangements needed to scale-up EE, added to the legislative frameworks and funding mechanisms, which works to support the implementation of EE strategies, policies and programmes” . 6
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. 1. Theor eoret etical ical supp pport ort 2.2. Index construction “ Source : Energy Efficiency Governance (IEA, 2010) 7
OVERVIEW Basic area for the Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt development of EE 2.1. 1. Theor eoret etical ical supp pport ort Enabl abling ing measures. It provides the 2.2. Index construction framewor works legal basis and the proper strategies to meet national targets. “ Practical instruments to Institut itutional ional enforce the development arrangem ngements ents and performance of EE measures. Co-ordination between EE Co Co-ordinat dination ion measures and policies, as mechanism hanisms well as the assessment of the final results 8
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. 1. Theor eoret etical ical supp pport ort 2.2. Index construction “ Source : Energy Efficiency Governance (IEA, 2010) 9
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. Theoretical support HIG IGHLIGHTS HLIGHTS 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion 32 OECD countries (Israel and Iceland have been excluded). 2000-2015 period (persistent factor). “ Three EE governance areas are assessed (8 indicators). But … What about out th the scores? res? 10
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d Huge collection ection effo fort rt (WEC, IEA, IRENA … ) theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt Main block: IEA database 2.1. Theoretical support Data collect ction on 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion > 1,800 entries “Entry” = Qua Qualita litativ tive and descri escriptive ptive information regarding a specific policy, law, strategy, plan, programme … SCORING CRITERA REQUIRED “ In force between 2000-2015 Filter ter > 1,700 entries E.g.: USA (169 entries), Spain (47 entries) or Estonia (4 entries) Descriptive/qualitative information. Each entry has been Classifica sificati tion on careful ca fully ly read in order to relate this with the correct EE governance and area and, concretely, with the correct indicator. 11
OVERVIEW There are no previous EE governance scores or Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d indicators. Therefore, the scores obtained are theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt rela re lative tive score scores (between the countries in the 2.1. Theoretical support sample). 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion Scoring 0-4 Scale for each indicator (E. Dabla-Norris et al., 2012) “ Subjectivity is minimized through the establishment of strict strict evalua valuatio tion crite criteri ria for for each ch indicato cator. Three sub-indices: one sub-index by each EE governance Aggregation area, calculated as the corresponding indicators average. One overall index (average of the three sub-indices). J. B. e. a. E. Dabla- Norris, “Investing in public investment: an index of public investment efficiency,” Journal of Economic Growth, pp. 17:225-266, 2012. Joint Research Center and OECD , “Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators,” 2008. 12
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. Theoretical support 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion “ 13
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. Theoretical support 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion “ 14
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d Are strate Are strategi gies es and nd acti action ons pla lans ns en enoug ugh? theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. Theoretical support Are the Are the costs costs of of the the pl plan ans estima estimate ted and and the the 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion targets ts set for strateg tegies and and action plans? s? The score is 0 if strategies and action plans have not been found; “ 1 if the number of plans is extremely limited; 2 if some plans have been found and in some cases costs are estimated and/or targets are set; 3 if abundant plans have been found and in some cases costs are estimated and/or targets set OR if an adequate amount of plans have been found and the costs are estimated and/or targets set for most of them; 4 if abundant plans have been found and for the most cost have been estimated and/or targets have been set. 15
OVERVIEW Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion and d Are Are strate strategi gies es and nd acti action ons pla lans ns en enoug ugh? theore heoretic ical suppo upport rt 2.1. Theoretical support Are the Are the costs costs of of the the pl plan ans estima estimate ted and and the the 2.2. 2. Index ndex cons onstruc uction ion targets ts set for strateg tegies and and action plans? s? The score is 0 if strategies and action plans have not been found; “ 1 if the number of plans is extremely limited; 2 if some plans have been found and in USA = 3 points (19 S&AP with costs or/and targets set in 11 of them) some cases costs are estimated and/or New Zealand = 2 points (7 S&AP with costs or/and targets set in 4 of them) targets are set; 3 if abundant plans have been found and in some cases costs are estimated and/or targets set OR if an adequate amount of plans have been found and the costs are estimated and/or targets set for most of them; 4 if abundant plans have been found and for the most cost have been estimated and/or targets have been set. 16
3. Results
EEGI 2000-20 2000 2015 15 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 Enabling framework Germany Denmark France Sweden New Zealand Italy United Kingdom Canada Institutional arrangements Spain United States Japan Hungary Belgium Czech Republic Australia Portugal Ireland Finland Norway Korea Co-ordination mechanisms Netherlands Luxembourg Turkey Austria Poland Slovakia Greece Mexico Switzerland Chile Slovenia Estonia OVERVIEW 3.1. 3.2. Sub-índices 1. Over erall all EEGI Results ults 18 GI
OVERVIEW EEGI VS GDP per capi pita ta Results ults 3.1. 1. Over erall all EEGI GI 3.2. Sub-índices 4,00 FRA DEU SWE DNK 3,50 NZL USA CAN ITA CZE 3,00 ESP HUN GBR JPN AUS IRL 2,50 PRT BEL TUR NLD FIN EEGI POL 2,00 NOR R² = 0 0,249 493 KOR LUX AUT (p (p-val alue ue = 0 0.01) SVK 1,50 GRC MEX CHE 1,00 CHL 0,50 SVN EST 0,00 8,00 8,50 9,00 9,50 10,00 10,50 11,00 GD GDP PER CAPIT ITA (Aver erage age 2000 2000-20 2015 15) 19
OVERVIEW EEGI VS WGI Results ults 3.1. 1. Over erall all EEGI GI 4,00 3.2. Sub-índices FRA DEU SWE DNK 3,50 GBR CAN ESP USA ITA JAP NZL 3,00 AUS HUN R² = 0,1087 BEL PRT 2,50 (p-val (p alue e = 0.0302) 2) CZE IRL KOR FIN EEGI TUR NLD NOR 2,00 LUX AUT POL GRC 1,50 SVK MEX CHE 1,00 0,50 CHL SVN EST 0,00 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 WGI (2000 2000-2015) 015) 20
Recommend
More recommend
