気候金融とグリーンエネルギー転換

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:気候金融の効果が制度品質に条件付くことを示す頑健なパネル実証で、移行金融研究の因果推論に貢献。

🏢実務担当者:新興国での再エネ投資・調達判断では、資金量より制度品質と補助金政策リスクを精査すべき。

🏛政策担当者:化石燃料補助金改革が最も一貫した再エネ促進策であり、気候金融は制度強化と組み合わせて設計すべき。

The mobilization of climate finance for green energy transition is one of the most important policy challenges of the twenty-first century, but there is a lack of systematic cross-regional evidence on the drivers and effects. This study uses a balanced longitudinal panel dataset from 2015 to 2024 for eleven countries in two developing regions: Sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and South Africa) and South and Southeast Asia, built entirely from data retrieved live from public World Bank, IRENA, OECD, and IMF APIs. This study examines how climate finance inflows, institutional quality, fossil-fuel subsidy reform, and macroeconomic fundamentals jointly shape renewable energy capacity expansion. Using data retrieved live from the World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI) and Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) APIs, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) RE-SHARE API, the OECD Creditor Reporting System Rio Markers API, and the IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies 2023 Update, we employ two-way fixed-effects (TWFE) panel models with Driscoll-Kraay-style standard errors to address cross-sectional dependence and heteroscedasticity, an instrumental-variable (IV) specification to probe endogeneity, and two-group difference-in-differences (DiD) estimates around three national subsidy-reform episodes. Contrary to the simple positive association often assumed in the literature, climate finance commitments show no significant bivariate correlation with renewable capacity share (r = 0.05, p = 0.64) and a negative, significant main effect in the baseline TWFE model (b = -0.59, p = 0.01); climate finance is instead effective specifically where institutional quality is higher, as shown by a positive and significant climate finance x institutional quality interaction (b = 2.44, p = 0.04). Fossil-fuel subsidy intensity exerts a robust, strongly significant negative effect on renewable capacity across every specification (b = -0.89 to -1.17), the most consistent finding in the study. The hypothesized regional advantage for South and Southeast Asia is not statistically supported (climate finance x region interaction, p = 0.47). Difference-in-differences estimates show statistically significant renewable-capacity gains around two of three reform episodes (Vietnam’s 2018 feed-in-tariff reform: +7.8 percentage points, p < 0.001; India’s 2017 LPG subsidy rationalisation: +5.6 percentage points, p < 0.01); Indonesia’s 2015 reform cannot be evaluated because it coincides with the first year of the panel. These findings qualify the dominant narrative that climate finance mechanically drives renewable energy deployment: in this sample its effectiveness is conditional on institutional quality, and fossil-fuel subsidy reform is the most consistent lever available to policymakers. This leads to policy implications for the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 7. Keywords: climate finance; green energy transition; renewable energy; panel data; Sub-Saharan Africa; South Asia; Southeast Asia; fixed effects; energy policy JEL Classification: Q42, Q48, O13, F35, H87

• openalex https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23133588first seen 2026-10-06 05:01:46