S EÑALES

Just as there is debate about industry sectors in developing countries leapfrogging ahead of industrialised countries in terms of competitiveness and market shares, opinions are divided about the applicability of the concept of leapfrogging, and particularly environmental leapfrogging, in newly industrialising / developing countries. While some consider it both possible and necessary (e.g. Goldemberg 1998, 2000, Choucri 1998, Tukker 2005, see more details below), for others the concept is problematic and has attracted considerable scepticism. Empirical evidence on technological change in many developing countries tends to lend more support to the idea of slow incremental technological changes, rather than radical changes and leapfrogging (Perkins 2003, Ho 2005, Rock 2008).

For instance, Goldemberg (1998, 2000), drawing on the experiences of the Brazilian ethanol industry and modern biomass energy in rural areas, considers it feasible that populations in developing countries can skip stages of development and leapfrog to higher rungs on the energy technology ladder, or even reach new rungs that have not yet been accessed by industrialised countries. For delivering modern sustainable energy services to rural areas, past efforts have

often been ineffective and inefficient. New approaches and policies which would create and foster competitive market conditions while providing measures to protect the public interest are considered a way forward. Policies that support investment in and spur demand for sustainable technologies and energy services are particularly important. The example of the Brazilian ethanol programme, where ethanol produced from sugarcane for transportation replaces gasoline, while not without critics (Smeet et al. 2006), provides some evidence that leapfrogging is a possible alternative to business-as-usual development. But such cleaner energy technology leapfrogging requires strong government policies and good technological capabilities in order to achieve widespread deployment.

Choucri (1998) also supports the idea that leapfrogging in developing countries is a realistic option. The question for Choucri is not whether leapfrogging is possible or not. He considers it ‗a strategic, pragmatic, and practical imperative, which focuses attention on actions to avoid ―old-fashioned‖ technology‘ and, underlining the urgency of the problem, states that ‗the quest for technology ―leapfrogging‖ becomes a necessity, not a choice‘ (Choucri 1998, p. 43). This is also emphasised by the IEA in a study on successful examples of leapfrogging through technology transfer (IEA 2001, p.2):

Developing countries need to ―leapfrog‖ a technological generation or two if concentrations of GHGs are to be stabilised. …[Their] infrastructure and economies are not as dependent on fossil fuels as the industrialised countries are. They can, therefore, avoid the fossil-fuel trap and move directly to environmentally-sound technologies.

For this alternative development to take place, effective national and local institutional mechanisms to facilitate technological change and administrative capacities to foster knowledge-building are necessary. A narrow focus on technology alone is not deemed sufficient as the embeddedness of technology into the socio-institutional context implies that leapfrogging must take place in broad terms, even including policy and organisational structures (Sauter & Watson

2008). Choucri (1998) further emphasises the importance of organisational collaboration between the three sectors of scientific education and research, business and industry, and government, to increase the likelihood and robustness of leapfrogging.

Finally, on the international level the importance of technology cooperation and technology transfer for leapfrogging is salient. This is an issue many commentators and researchers seem to agree on (e.g. Choucri 1998, Goldemberg 1998, Ockwell et al. 2007, Sauter and Watson 2008, World Bank 2008). Such cooperation is more effective if it targets the latest innovations and frontier technologies, rather than outdated and polluting equipment, products and processes.

Before any leapfrogging is possible in the development and manufacture of new technologies in developing latecomer countries, access to cutting-edge technologies is necessary for firms and organisations in these countries to upgrade their technological capabilities and adapt new technologies to the local context. Involvement of international organisations can also reduce the risk associated with innovation and newly developed technologies.

According to Choucri (1998), prior to the global diffusion of environmental technologies, there must first take place global diffusion of information on these technologies. Information exchange on technologies, knowledge networking and exchange of best practices on a global level are consequently considered the most decisive first step. He identifies three crucial and interconnected priorities:

(a) strengthen technology capacity by reducing technology gaps and raising institutional performance;

(b) acquire knowledge about ―best technologies‖ as well as knowledge-networking mechanisms and processes;

(c) maintain access to networks of knowledge as well as interactions with major knowledge and information providers.

Current development trends are not always encouraging, with environmental conditions

worsening in many developing countries and windows of opportunities closing fast (Beddoe et al.

2009). Nonetheless, Tukker (2005) considers that emerging economies and developing countries, in contrast to already developed countries which are locked-in in terms of infrastructure, skill sets and the symbolic meaning of practices, still have the opportunities and flexibility to encourage radical changes for sustainability. Leapfrogging will only occur if shifts in socio-technical regimes and large-scale systemic change, rather than system compliant solutions, can be made possible (see also Section 3.2). To make these changes happen, it is likely to be necessary to, first, develop foresight and indicative planning with regard to the desired direction of and approach to (sustainable) development, and second, to develop governance structures for taking the more sustainable direction, in a situation where societal or physical pressure is still relatively low.

To those sceptical of the concept, it seems that leapfrogging, especially leapfrogging leading to reductions of environmental pressures, is in most cases not occurring and many attempts to leapfrog in developing countries to date have failed. Perkins (2003) reviews existing conventional approaches and concludes that current efforts and methods are often too ambiguous, make simplistic assumptions about the technological possibilities and are characterised by incomplete understanding of the complex processes involved. For these reasons many attempts to leapfrog in developing countries have failed. Despite the shortcomings he considers leapfrogging to be an important possibility that should not be given up. Therefore, he provides suggestions to improve current approaches including more specific targets of leapfrogging, such as investment in targeted economic sectors that would make a significant contribution to leapfrogging objectives and long-term environmental goals. In addition, leapfrogging capabilities and technologies need to be supported by incentive regimes and public and private policy measures. Effective leapfrogging furthermore requires the promotion of cooperative partnerships between key actors on a national and international level. Long-term partnerships between actors in industrialised and developing countries involving R&D, development and manufacture of leapfrog technologies are especially important.

Similarly, Ho (2005) investigates leapfrogging in the context of greening of domestic industries in newly industrialising countries (NICs) in Asia. While the development of impoverished developing regions in Asia into strong and internationally competitive economies occurred over the last decades, NICs in Asia have been much less successful in terms of ecological sustainability and environmental protection. There are several structural factors at work that impede environmental leapfrogging in Asian NICs‘ industries: in particular, the implementation of policies that are expected to promote and facilitate environmental protection, such as decentralised, integrated, voluntary, participatory and market-based approaches may be absent in Asian NICs. The reason, Ho argues, is the nature of the Asian developmental State that makes it ‗uncertain to what degree ―soft‖ and market-based State regulation on the premises of a democratic polity would work within a newly industrialising context and a different political system‘

(Ho 2005, p. 213).

Furthermore, environmental technologies have mostly been developed and are owned by industries in the industrialised North, so that a substantive technology transfer from North to South would be involved to enable Asian NICs to leapfrog. An important question consequently is to what extent environmental technologies developed and owned by the North are sufficiently geared to the needs of users in the South, particularly those in the small-scale industrial sectors.

This is particularly relevant for the industrial landscape in China which is dominated by small and medium-scale industries that almost always still operate on outmoded and highly polluting technologies. Another obstacle is the fact that so-called ‗environmental industries‘ or ‗green tech‘

enterprises are scattered, small-scale, have weak innovative capabilities, and low capital and knowledge. Therefore, the current capacity of China‘s environmental industries limits opportunities for the development of domestic leapfrog technologies. Ho sees the issue of environmental leapfrogging in industries as a challenge for public policy and proposes that ‗the regulatory, interventionist strategies of the developmental state should make way for a more facilitative approach that allows for stronger self-regulation by industries…policy-making should

pro-actively embark on a leapfrogging development path, rather than the common, reactive approach of slow and incremental ―muddling through‖‘ (Ho 2005, p. 223).

In the context of climate change, Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla (2006) argue that emerging economies and developing countries are unlikely to leapfrog carbo Bashmakov n-intensive energy development. On the contrary, they argue, carbon lock-in appears to be globalising and will further constrain climate change mitigation options. Reasons for this include barriers or inertia in the institutional systems responsible for GHG emissions, which constrain apparently rational choices on the part of economic and political actors, and path-dependent processes driven by increasing returns to scale. Similar to the current status of energy development and the reductions necessary for climate stabilisation presented earlier, there seems to be a profound gap between what is required, expectations, and observed reality. According to Rock et al. (2008), in developing countries and emerging economies, socio-technical transitions towards sustainability are mostly incremental changes and improvements along existing development trajectories, and not radical innovations. It is emphasized that ―it is vital to recognize sustainability transitions as hard slogs not leap frogs from one landscape and regime to the next‖ (2008, p.12).

In the same way, Ockwell et al. (2007) argue that the concept of leapfrogging has been widely discredited in terms of its ability to reflect the reality of processes of technological changes and learning on the firm level, which proceed in incremental changes rather than leaps.

Nevertheless, regarding the idea of environmental leapfrogging in the context of low carbon technology transfer, Ockwell et al. (2007) still see potential to skip generations of technology in the application phase. In the context of low-carbon technologies such as SWH systems, and micro-generation technologies such as solar and wind, leapfrogging would essentially involve developing economies moving consciously to adopt the most advanced available low-carbon product technologies. A high degree of government engagement aimed at providing a wide range of effective policies, including incentives, to catalyse such a leapfrogging scenario, is deemed necessary.