Absorptive Capacity, R&D Spillovers, Emissions Taxes and R&D Subsidies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a duopoly competing on quantity, where firms can invest in R8D to control their emissions. We distinguish between efforts carried out to acquire first-hand knowledge (inventive R8D) and efforts made to develop an absorptive capacity to be able to capture part of the knowledge developed by the rival. There are also free R8D spillovers between firms. To reach the first best outcome, the regulator uses three instruments, namely, a per-unit emissions tax, a per-unit inventive-research subsidy, and a per-unit absorptive-research subsidy. The socially optimal investment cost in inventive R8D is always higher than that in absorptive R8D. Interestingly, when the free spillover is high enough, the regulator gives a greater per-unit subsidy for inventive research, and when it is low enough and the marginal damage cost of pollution is sufficiently high, the regulator supports absorptive research to strengthen R8D spillovers. Moreover, inventive research is actually taxed when the free spillover is low and the marginal damage cost of pollution is high.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".