Comparative Effectiveness of Carbon Pricing, Industrial Subsidies, and Innovation Support in Green New Deal Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/pze25y19Keywords:
Green New Deal, carbon pricing, feed in tariff, innovation policy, policy mix, climate policy, systematic review.Abstract
The accelerating climate emergency has prompted governments worldwide to adopt comprehensive Green New Deal strategies that combine multiple policy instruments to deliver deep decarbonization while sustaining economic growth. This study conducts a systematic literature review, structured around the PRISMA 2020 protocol, of three core policy instruments central to Green New Deal frameworks: carbon pricing, industrial subsidies including feed in tariffs, and public innovation support. Drawing on 147 quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2025 and indexed in Web of Science, Scopus, and EconLit, we standardize effect sizes using semi elasticity coefficients, abatement cost in dollars per ton of carbon dioxide, and patent based innovation indicators. Results show that carbon pricing achieves the lowest unit abatement cost in the short to medium term, with semi elasticities clustered between 0.003 and 0.008 per dollar per ton increase and minimal macroeconomic disruption. Industrial subsidies and feed in tariffs accelerate technology deployment and trigger learning by doing cost reductions of roughly 20 percent per doubling of cumulative capacity, although early stage abatement costs frequently exceed 100 dollars per ton. Public innovation support increases high quality clean technology patents by 10 to 20 percent but exhibits long temporal lags. The three instruments are complementary rather than substitutable, and an optimally sequenced combination dominates any single instrument approach. The review provides a quantitative evidence base to support the design of effective Green New Deal policy packages.
Downloads
References
[1] European Commission, The European Green Deal, Communication COM(2019) 640 final, Brussels: European Commission, 2019.
[2] K. S. Rogge and K. Reichardt, Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis, Research Policy, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1620 to 1635, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004
[3] K. Gillingham and J. H. Stock, The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 53 to 72, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.4.53
[4] M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, et al., The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, vol. 372, n71, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
[5] M. L. Weitzman, Prices vs. quantities, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 477 to 491, 1974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2296698
[6] R. Schmalensee and R. N. Stavins, Lessons learned from three decades of experience with cap and trade, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 59 to 79, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew017
[7] L. H. Goulder, Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader guide, International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 157 to 183, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00877495
[8] A. L. Bovenberg and R. A. de Mooij, Environmental levies and distortionary taxation, American Economic Review, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 1085 to 1089, 1994.
[9] L. H. Goulder and M. A. C. Hafstead, Confronting the Climate Challenge: U.S. Policy Options, New York: Columbia University Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/goul17902
[10] G. E. Metcalf and J. H. Stock, The macroeconomic impact of Europe carbon taxes, American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 265 to 286, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20210052
[11] D. Acemoglu, P. Aghion, L. Bursztyn, and D. Hemous, The environment and directed technical change, American Economic Review, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 131 to 166, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.131
[12] P. Aghion, A. Dechezlepretre, D. Hemous, R. Martin, and J. Van Reenen, Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 1 to 51, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/684581
[13] K. S. Rogge and K. Reichardt, Towards a more comprehensive policy mix conceptualization for environmental technological change, SPRU Working Paper Series 2013-03, University of Sussex, 2013.
[14] J. Hoppmann, M. Peters, M. Schneider, and V. H. Hoffmann, The two faces of market support: How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry, Research Policy, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 989 to 1003, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.002
[15] J. J. Andersson, Carbon taxes and CO2 emissions: Sweden as a case study, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1 to 30, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170144
[16] J. Hoppmann, J. Huenteler, and B. Girod, Compulsive policy making: The evolution of the German feed in tariff system for solar photovoltaic power, Research Policy, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1422 to 1441, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.014
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
