Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. 1 Abstract Recent decades witnessed a trend whereby private markets retreated from financing the real economy, while, simultaneously, the real economy itself became increasingly financialized. This trend resulted in public finance becoming more important for investments in capital development, technical change, and innovation. Within this context, this paper focuses on the roles played by a particular source of public finance: state investment banks (SIBs). It develops a conceptual typology of the different roles that SIBs play in the economy, which together show the market creation/shaping process of SIBs rather than their mere "market fixing" roles. This paper discusses four types of investments, both theoretically and empirically: countercyclical, developmental, venture capitalist, and challenge led. To develop the typology, we first discuss how standard market failure theory justifies the roles of SIBs, the diagnostics and evaluation toolbox associated with it, and resulting criticisms centered on notions of "government failures." We then show the limitations of this approach based on insights from Keynes, Schumpeter, Minsky, and Polanyi, as well as other authors from the evolutionary economics tradition, which help us move toward a framework for public investments that is more about market creating/shaping than market fixing. As frameworks lead to evaluation tools, we use this new lens to discuss the increasingly targeted investments that SIBs are making, and to shed new light on the usual criticisms that are made about such directed activity (e.g., crowding out and picking winners). The paper ends with a proposal of directions for future research. Terms of use: Documents in

This paper aims to make two conceptual contributions to the greening of industry literature. Firstly, we propose that the greening process can be conceptualized as an issue lifecycle dynamics with multi-dimensional struggles between 'greening' pressures and industry response strategies. To capture the endogenous dynamics, we develop a Dialectic Issue LifeCycle model with five phases, which conceptualize how these struggles play out over time. Secondly, we propose that issue lifecycle dynamics are also influenced by (external) alignments with contextual field-level developments. This proposition accommodates the notion that industries not only face 'green' issues but also other relevant pressures. We apply the model to a historical case study: air pollution problems and responses from American automakers . The case study presents a good match with the first three phases of the model, but shows deviations in the fourth and fifth phase, which are due to: a) decreasing pressure from public opinion; b) limited spillovers from air pollution to consumer demand; c) rise of competing issues; and d) strong resistance from the car industry. The findings underline that the greening of industry cannot be fully understood by looking only at the focal issue (e.g. air pollution). Broader developments in industry and external contexts also need to be taken into account.

a b s t r a c tThis paper uses the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle-model (DILC-model) to analyze the co-evolution of the climate change problem and strategic responses from the American car industry. The longitudinal and multi-dimensional analysis investigates the dynamics of the climate change problem in terms of sociopolitical mobilization by social movements, scientists, wider publics and policymakers. It also analyses how U.S. automakers responded to mounting pressures with socio-political, economic and innovation strategies oriented towards low-carbon propulsion technologies. We use a mixed methodology with a quantitative analysis of various time-series and an in-depth qualitative case study, which traces interactions between problem-related pressures and industry responses. We conclude that U.S. automakers are slowly reorienting towards low-carbon technologies, but due to weakening pressures have not yet fully committed to comprehensive development and marketing. The paper not only applies the DILCmodel, but also proposes three elaborations: (a) the continued diversity of technical solutions, and 'ups and downs' in future expectations, creates uncertainty which delays strategic reorientation; (b) firms may develop radical innovations for political and social purposes in early phases of the model; (c) issue lifecycles are also shaped by external influences from other problems and contexts.

How can one conceptualize the new ‘mission-oriented’ role assumed by national development banks (NDBs)? The standard ‘market failure’ perspective provides only a partial and limited justification for what NDBs do and does not explain historical and contemporary developments. This chapter combines insights from Keynes, Minsky, Schumpeter, and Polanyi (and works in their tradition) to review the old and new roles of NDBs. It discusses these roles taking into account two important dimensions: (i) the relationship between risks and rewards, and (ii) the criticisms that NDBs crowd out private investments. It shows that the roles typically performed by NDBs go beyond that of the state as ‘market fixer’ to assume that of market shaper and creator.