Institutional Inertia and Path Dependency in the Energy Transition of Taiwan’s Cement Industry: A Multi-Level Perspective Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v5i1.5547Keywords:
Carbon Lock-In, Ccus, Energy Transition, Institutional Inertia, Just Transition, Multi-Level Perspective, Policy Mix, Taiwan Cement IndustryAbstract
Taiwan’s cement industry accounts for roughly 7 percent of national CO₂ emissions and faces EU CBAM and national net-zero mandates. This study applies the Multi-Level Perspective, carbon lock-in, and policy mix theories to examine decarbonization drivers and barriers in Taiwan’s oligopolistic, capital-intensive cement sector. Qualitative content analysis and process tracing reveal that entrenched technological paradigms, fragmented policy regimes, and immature low-carbon niches hinder systemic change. Landscape pressures (border carbon policies, green finance) are intensifying, yet regime inertia limits disruptive innovations (LC3, geopolymer cements, CCUS). Modeling suggests existing best practices can cut emissions by up to 40 percent by 2035, but deeper (> 80 percent) reductions require CCUS deployment. We propose dynamic carbon pricing with revenue recycling, green public procurement, accelerated binder standards, shared CCUS infrastructure, and just transition measures to overcome lock-in and enable deep decarbonization. This integrated framework advances transition theory and informs governance strategies for small open economies.
Downloads
References
Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hémous, D., Martin, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry. Journal of International Economics, 99, 192–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2015.12.005
Avelino, F., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), 543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431009349830
Bataille, C., Åhman, M., Neuhoff, K., Nilsson, L. J., Fischedick, M., Lechtenböhmer, S., … Zhou, P. (2018). A review of technology and policy deep decarbonization pathway options for the industrial sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206, 1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.044
Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
Habert, G., Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Antoni, M., & Scrivener, K. L. (2020). Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(11), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3
Huang, Y.-H., Chang, Y.-L., & Fleiter, T. (2016). A critical analysis of energy efficiency improvement potentials in Taiwan’s cement industry. Energy Policy, 96, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.025
Ishak, M. (2014). Low carbon measures for cement plant A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.003
Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
Miller, S. A., Habert, G., Myers, R. J., & Harvey, J. T. (2021). Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the cement industry via value chain mitigation strategies. One Earth, 4(10), 1398–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.011
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004
Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M., & Gartner, E. M. (2018). Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015
Seto, K. C., Davis, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., Stokes, E. C., Unruh, G., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934
Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
Su, T.-L., Chan, D. Y.-L., Hung, C.-Y., & Hong, G.-B. (2013). The status of energy conservation in Taiwan’s cement industry. Energy Policy, 60, 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.002
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jia-Ying Lyu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
