Transitions between Technological Generations
of Alternative Fuel Vehicles in Brazil
Abstract
The transportation sector is responsible for nearly a quarter of greenhouse gases emissions (GHG); thus,
incisive policies are necessary to mitigate the sector’s effect on climate change. Promoting alternative fuel
vehicles (AFV) is an essential strategy to reduce GHG emissions in the short term. Here, we study the
effects of governmental incentives on the diffusion of ethanol and flex-fuel vehicle technologies in Brazil.
We use a multi-generation diffusion model which assumes that new technologies introduce fresh market
potential for adopters as well as upgraders from established technologies. Our analysis indicates that tax
rates affected the adoption of both gasoline and ethanol technology, but for flex vehicles, the effect of
taxation is not significant. The effect of fuel price shocks during the 1990s meant that the introduction of
ethanol technology made no significant impact on market potential and a negative word-of-mouth effect
contributed to the technology’s failure. In contrast, the introduction of flex technology led to almost a
doubling of total market potential. As policy suggestions, we emphasise the importance of tax reduction
in addition to promoting versatile technologies, which insulate consumers against price fluctuations.
1
1. Introduction
The diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) for transport faces uncertainty inherent of
any innovation. Costs, compatibility issues, and the complexity of new technologies are all risks to be
assessed from the consumer’s perspective (Rogers, 2003). In the case of transport, there is the imperative
of reducing CO2 emissions. In 2010, transport accounted for 23% of energy-related CO2 emissions
according to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC, 2014). Their report emphases that,
if countries do not promote more aggressive and continuous policies, emissions of transport greenhouse
gases (GHG) would be the fastest to increase. The Paris Agreement recognises the need to undertake
rapid reductions of GHG to hold the increase of global average temperature below 2º C above pre-
industrial levels (UNFCCC, 2015).
Past experience, where technologies have gone through their full diffusion cycle, show how
these policies may impact positively and negatively. One of the major examples found in the literature is
the Brazilian Alcohol Program (Pró-Álcool). Officially established in 1975, its goal was to supply the
internal market with an alternative liquid fuel to gasoline, thus reducing imports of oil products by
producing ethanol from sugarcane (Goldemberg et al., 2004; Moreira and Goldemberg, 1999). It was
Brazil’s primary strategy to overcome the oil crisis from the 1970s. Despite the program’s shortcomings
during the 1990s, the rapid adoption of flex-fuel technology has enabled a rebirth of ethanol as a
widespread vehicle fuel. Throughout its history, government support was an important variable.
Through diffusion studies, we can understand how a new idea or product spreads among a
social system, such as a country or region, and which communication channels are used to reach each of
its individuals (Rogers, 2003). Nevertheless, social systems are complex entities where change agents (e.
g. government, companies) can push or discourage new technologies among a pool of competing options.
Some modelling frameworks have sought to study the diffusion of renewable energy technologies (RET)
and AFV, but few have investigated the latter’s relationship with government incentives and taken into
account the interaction of successive generations of technologies. Danaher et al. (2001) show that single
2
generation models miss essential components of diffusion processes, especially when considering
marketing factors. Thus, models that incorporate multiple technological generations can bring substantive
insights into strategic and policy decisions. Norton and Bass (1987) argue that applying multi-generation
models is plausible and historically accurate, with plenty of examples (e. g. in marine power, steam
engines replaced ship’s sail, and then it was then substituted by internal combustion engines).
Our objective is firstly to understand the evolution of a successive generation of vehicle
technologies associated with the Brazilian Alcohol Program, namely ethanol and flex-fuel; and secondly
to investigate how government incentives (tax reduction) have affected the diffusion of such
technological generations. The contributions of this paper are the extension of the multi-technology
diffusion model by incorporating the effects of leapfrogging and marketing effects. We also include the
acceleration of diffusion speed (Islam and Meade, 1997) and relative influences of external effects and
social learning (i.e., imitation) on the diffusion of multi-generations of AFV.
For many authors, vehicle innovations are less likely to have a wide diffusion if supporting
refuelling stations are absent; however, building costs are prohibitive if the scale is small (Brito et al.,
2017; Gnann and Plötz, 2015; Kloess and Müller, 2011; Leibowicz, 2018; Meyer and Winebrake, 2009;
Mouette et al., 2019). They consent that, to break this so-called chicken-and-egg dilemma, infrastructure
must come first, and that is where government incentives are important. We did not address this issue for
ethanol in Brazil, because it follows a similar distribution chain to gasoline – however, we acknowledge
that this issue is relevant for diffusion studies about non-liquid fuel technologies such as hybrid/plug-in
electric, hydrogen, and natural gas.
In Section 2, we review some studies on the effect of incentives designed to enhance the
diffusion of renewable technologies and alternative fuels for vehicles. Further, we present a historical
overview of ethanol and flex technology in Brazil, along with policy and economic factors that
contributed to such development. Section 3 presents our data and their sources and how they have been
processed for use in our model. In Section 4, we describe the multi-generation diffusion model developed
for this study explaining our assumptions, limitations, and hypotheses. In Section 5, we give the results of
3
our analysis and discuss their implications. In Section 6, we give our conclusions and policy
recommendations appropriate for the diffusion of future generations of AFV in Brazil, or for other
countries wishing to introduce similar programs.
2. Review of Literature
Innovation diffusion models have been used since the 1960s to study the diffusion of:
consumer goods, such as electronics and house appliances; farming techniques; drug consumption
(Rogers, 2003), information and communications technologies (Islam and Meade, 1996; Meade and
Islam, 2015). Traditional models generally assume that consumer innovativeness and social learning, i.e.,
imitation are the main drivers of the diffusion process (Bass, 1969). Nevertheless, governments,
companies or other change agents can also stimulate diffusion. The following subsections discuss how
literature has approached the diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles and how government incentives can
promote them. We then present a brief history of the ethanol program in Brazil, along with technological
innovations that contributed to its development to clarify the context of our study.
2.1. Innovation Diffusion of Energy Technologies
Single generation diffusion models have been used to study natural gas (Zhu et al., 2015),
electric cars (Wansart and Schnieder, 2010), and fuel cell (Collantes, 2007), solar PV systems (Masini
and Frankl, 2002; Peter, 2002), and wind energy (Ibenholt, 2002; Rao and Kishore, 2009). These
applications are usually one of three types: general spread, pricing a diffusion variable or forecasting.
However, they to focus on commercial products and few paid attention to policy impacts and interactions
with successive generations of technologies (Al-Alawi and Bradley, 2013; Rao and Kishore, 2010).
Islam and Meade (1997) argue that after the radical innovation of the first generation of a
technology, in most cases, successive generations are less radical but can bring significant performance
improvements. They do not require the user to acquire significant new skills, as observed in computers
and electronics products. In this context, later adopters may prefer to acquire a more modern version of a
4
product, without buying the earlier product, while early adopters will subsequently upgrade. Part of the
pool of potential adopters of the earlier technology shifts to swell the pool of potential adopters as the
whole increase (Norton and Bass, 1987; Stremersch et al., 2010). Some authors used multiple
generational approaches to study high technology products, such as computers and video games (Shi et
al., 2014), cellular phones (Kim and Shon, 2011), memory chips (Jun and Park, 1999; Versluis, 2002),
milk containers (Speece and Maclachlan, 1992).
In the context of RET, Guidolin and Guseo (2016) employed a model incorporating
competition and regime change to investigate the substitution of fossil and nuclear energy in Germany.
They identified a high word of mouth influence on the diffusion of wind and solar power and confirmed
that this model was the best option for the German case, where the predominant energy transition is
directed to electricity production. Meade and Islam (2015a) developed a model to study the impacts of 10
covariates on the diffusion of wind, solar and bioenergy in 14 European countries. The model provided
relevant insights regarding such covariates, accurate forecasting densities and divided the countries into
four groups concerning their rate of RET adoption (slow, normal, fast and very fast).
While studying substitution of internal combustion engines (ICE) vehicles by hydrogen and
hybrid-electric cars, Struben and Sterman (2008) applied a dynamic behavioural model by introducing the
willingness to consider the adoption of those vehicles. They point out that awareness and adoptions must
pass given thresholds to allow a self-sustaining diffusion, and that a positive word of mouth effect might
have a significant impact on lowering this threshold. Jeon (2010) modelled successive technologies for
hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles in the United States by applying a multi-generation diffusion
model(Norton and Bass, 1987) (Norton and Bass, 1987) to capture the impacts of vehicle and gasoline
price. The study projected that these technologies could achieve 8 million sales annually by 2030. These
studies are examples of the need to identify how AFV will fare amid the competition with conventional
energy sources.
2.2. The Impact of Tax Incentives on Diffusion Rates
5
Despite the availability of financial and fiscal incentives, renewable energy technologies
spread rates are still low, which is concerning in the face of the urgency posed by climate change and
other environmental issues (Rao and Kishore, 2010). According to Pfeiffer and Mulder (2013), diffusion
of RET (except hydro) across 108 developing countries, from 1980 to 2010, has accelerated in stable and
democratic regimes with high per capita income and schooling. Conversely, the probability of adopting
RET has reduced if the country is a large producer of hydro or fossil energy sources.
Freitas et al. (2012) indicated that Kyoto Protocol mechanisms incentivised the increase of
energy generation from renewables rather than promoted efficient and sustainable energy usage in BRICS
countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Aguirre and Ibikunle (2014) suggest that some
public policies fail to promote renewable technologies in BRICS countries because they are driven by
environmental concerns, but commitment to RET decreases under energy supply constraints.
Diffusion models have been used to study the effectiveness of government incentives in the
photovoltaic (PV) sector in several countries. These studies suggest that incentives must be timed to
coincide with the technology's diffusion stage as renewable technologies have a low innovation tendency
(Guidolin and Mortarino, 2010). Studies further suggest that several policies such as feed-in tariffs, trust
funds, specific lines of credit and the regulation of distribution tariffs for final consumers are necessary to
effectively diffuse PV energy (Ferreira et al., 2018; Muñoz et al., 2007; Pinto et al., 2016). In a review of
50 case studies throughout developed countries, Negro et al. (2012) indicate the necessity of stable long
term, but flexible, incentives.
Governmental policy is regarded as essential for the successful diffusion of vehicle
technologies, regardless of a country’s development level. Jenn et al. (2018) concluded that in the US, for
each $1000 incentive, electric vehicle sales rise by 2.6%. Lieven and Rietmann (2018) found that the
number of charging stations magnifies the effect of monetary incentives on the diffusion of electric
vehicles. Other studies also identified that economic stimulus has a significant and positive impact on
electric vehicles diffusion rates (Langbroek et al., 2016; Sierzchula et al., 2014). Egbue and Long (2012)
find that the use of tax credits to subsidise the cost of EVs increases consumer confidence. Benvenutti et
6
al. (2016) suggest that tax reductions are more effective when given to manufacturers than directly to car
owners.
For the diffusion of hybrid electric vehicles in Brazil, Benvenutti et al. (2017) modelled a
range of policy scenarios such as importation tax exemption, local tax reduction, ten-year federal tax
exemption and a more radical policy of banning conventional combustion engine cars. Their results
reinforced the importance of incentives, especially when combined. Similarly, Baran and Legey (2013)
simulated the diffusion of electric vehicles in Brazil and its impact on energy consumption. They used
exogenous parameters under different penetration scenarios and concluded that the Brazilian market is
open to new technologies. The following historical overview corroborates these findings.
2.3. The Alcohol Program and Ethanol and Flex Vehicles
The choice of ethanol as an alternative fuel for gasoline has foundations deep in Brazilian
history. The country had built up a sugar-cane industry over 400 years since its colonisation period, due to
its favourable tropical climate, with abundant water and land availability (Moutinho dos Santos and
Parente, 2006). Since 1931, the federal government has authorised a 5% blend of anhydrous ethanol with
imported gasoline, but until 1970, the industry used 70% of its production (Puglieri, 2013).
By the end of the 1970s, as a result of the oil shocks (Brito et al., 2012) petroleum prices had
two consecutive sudden rises (in 1973 and 1979), Brazil started its Alcohol Program to substitute
gasoline-fueled passenger cars for ethanol ones (Moreira and Goldemberg, 1999). The proportion of
ethanol in the blend with gasoline increased to about 20% during this period and remained at this level. In
addition to the oil shock, the national sugar industry was facing a crisis due to the collapse of the sugar
price in the international market. The Alcohol Program was created primarily to give sugarcane producers
a new commercial use for their crops, promoting the country’s energy security was secondary (Moutinho
dos Santos and Parente, 2006).
The Brazilian automobile industry was developed in the 1950s and afterwards by
multinational companies such as Volkswagen, Ford, GM, and Fiat, who imported their oil-based
7
technologies. By the start of the Alcohol Program, these gasoline engines converted to run on pure
ethanol were gravely deficient due to inadequate fuel-air mixture control and corrosion when (Moreira
and Goldemberg, 1999). The development of electronic fuel injection technology during the 1970s was
the main innovation that allowed the use of ethanol as a complete substitute to gasoline in Otto-cycle
engines, in conjunction with higher compression ratio engines using corrosion-resistant materials (Yu et
al., 2010). The first passenger ethanol vehicle registrations were in 1979 and increased during the 1980s
(ANFAVEA, 2018). By that time, the government had started to give incentives to ethanol producers and
dedicated vehicle manufacturers (Coelho et al., 2006; Moreira and Goldemberg, 1999). Taxes on ethanol
vehicles were about 5% lower than those on gasoline vehicles (ANFAVEA, 2018), and ethanol fuel was
tax-free for final consumers. Confidence in ethanol technology also played an essential role in the
Program's success as it was seen as patriotic (Moutinho dos Santos and Parente, 2006). However, from
1989 to 1992, Brazil experienced an ethanol shortage as sugarcane farmers shifted their production to
sugar, as the sugar price became more competitive than ethanol (Puglieri, 2013). This period is called the
first ethanol shock, which coincided with the oil ‘counter-shock’ when oil prices returned to competitive
levels. The fuel price ratio (ethanol's price compared to gasoline) went, on average, from 62%, during the
1980s to 77% during the 1990s. This situation frustrated consumers who had purchased ethanol vehicles
to insulate themselves from a price rise in oil products price, such as that in the 1970s (Moutinho dos
Santos and Parente, 2006).
Moreover, the government, targeting the low-income and middle-class population, had
started to give incentives to vehicles with small capacity engines (popular cars) (Bastin et al., 2010).
Ethanol vehicle sales systematically decreased during this period, clearly demonstrating that ten years
after the launch of the ethanol vehicle, it was still dependent on government incentives (Moreira and
Goldemberg, 1999). Regardless of a decrease in sales, the government has kept high levels of ethanol
blending with gasoline, as it is an excellent additive, mixtures of up to 20% ethanol were allowed by the
government. This policy sustained the Program since it maintained the producer's security against
8
international sugar prices volatility and encouraged long-term stable ethanol production (Goldemberg et
al., 2008; Moutinho dos Santos and Parente, 2006).
Environmental concerns expressed by the Kyoto Protocol brought a new perspective to
ethanol as a mean of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Moreira et al., 2005). This new phase of
the Brazilian Alcohol Program, marked by the Petroleum Law in 1997, started a series of liberalisation
policies and the expansion of cogeneration and electricity commercialisation with sugarcane bagasse (a
biofuel), which increased ethanol’s competitiveness (Goldemberg et al., 2004; Puglieri, 2013). By the
early 2000s, a sudden rise in oil prices, along with Kyoto Protocol’s rising number of ratifications, have
turned the world’s attention to biomass as an important source of renewable energy (Moutinho dos Santos
and Parente, 2006). Brazil used its expertise to become a leader in the international clean fuels
discussion and a lead exporter by 2004, as a new technological development gave a fresh breath to use of
ethanol as a vehicle fuel.
By the 1980s, researchers from the US and Brazil were testing an engine that could operate
on all blends of gasoline and ethanol (Pefley et al., 1980). The technological breakthrough was the
development of a software sensor installed into the electronic injection module that could measure fuel
concentration and adjust the engine accordingly (Teixeira, 2005; Yu et al., 2010). In the US, these engines
can use only up to 85% ethanol due to possible problems with a cold start (Bastian-Pinto et al., 2010).
However, the Brazilian system memorises the latest composition; thus allowing it to burn any
ethanol/gasoline blend or either separately (Coelho et al., 2006; Mesquita et al., 2013; Teixeira, 2005).
The first flex vehicles were registered in the Brazilian market by 2003 under the same taxation applied to
ethanol. Sales took off quickly, and in only three years, flex cars corresponded to more than 90% of the
market share. Unlike ethanol, flex vehicle sales have been dominant since 2006, and are now the
mainstream vehicle technology in the country. At the time of its launch, there was some concern about
fuel efficiency. However, current figures indicate that flex technology consumption is equivalent to a
single fuel vehicle when using gasoline, and has increased efficiency by roughly 40% when using ethanol
(CETESB, 2017). Both ethanol and flex vehicles presented both economic and technological
9
improvements over gasoline vehicles. From the consumer’s perspective, the flexibility of choosing which
fuel is a relative advantage over older technologies. The total flex technology available in Brazil was
only possible due to previous knowledge obtained through the experience with dedicated ethanol
vehicles. We consider that ethanol and flex technologies represent successive technological generations
after gasoline. These generations occurred under the long term policy of the Brazilian Alcohol Program
which promoted technologies by reducing taxation over them, among other policy instruments.
2.4 Institutional and Cultural Impact on AFV Diffusion in Brazil
According to institutional theory, resources originating from the state, the public sector or
multinational firms exert an external influence over the innovation diffusion process by increasing both
network ties and the adopter base (see DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Guler et al., 2002; King et al., 1994).
The presence of coercive organisations and/or regulatory bodies or foreign multinationals in a country
will tend to introduce and enforce standardisation and accreditation. These actions may affect a
technology (or generation of technology) either positively or negatively (see Guler et al., 2002;
Rosenzweig and Singh, 1991). Due to its geography and its history, the diffusion of AFVs in Brazil is
firmly embedded in the national culture and the structures of institutions (Goldemberg, 2007). Brazil’s
innovation system for sugarcane ethanol results from an incremental technological learning process and
the interaction among different institutions, universities, research centres and firms. The coordination
between the productive process and the technological trajectory was essential for the competitiveness of
the ethanol industry (see Furtado et al., 2011).
National culture is a multi-dimensional construct which plays an essential role in cross-
country product diffusion. The influence of different cultural dimensions on product adoption/diffusion
varies depending on the nature of the product. Hofstede (2001) cultural dimensions are the most relevant
tools to study the impact of culture across different countries. Hofstede’s dimensions show that Brazil’s
collective society is high on uncertainty avoidance and power distance, while intermediate along other
dimensions. Brazil’s institutional structure, such as the need for complex regulatory systems, is linked to
10
high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede’s Insights, 2019). These cultural aspects are also observed in
institutional operations (government, ethanol producers and vehicle manufacturers) throughout the
program’s phases. The creation of the Alcohol Program, launched in 1975, when the country was under a
period of military government, reflects the top-down push of the ethanol technology, strongly supported
by this regime’s policy to substitute imported oil products by domestic produced ethanol (Duarte and
Rodrigues, 2017; Nastari, 1983). This reflects the cultural dimension of high power distance where
inequality in power structure is widely accepted in the society. Later, during the 1990s, when the country
had resumed democratic government, a new regulatory system, the Petroleum Law, gave strong support
to ethanol producers (Goldemberg et al., 2014). More recently, a new government policy (Renovabio)
still shows the program’s dependence on regulation in order to sustain itself (Cordellini, 2018). The
inclusion of ethanol as a vehicle fuel has also caused changes to the population’s fuelling and driving
habits. Isabella et al. (2017) surveyed consumer’s preferences in Brazil from the perspective of diffusion
theory and supply change management and found that the environmental and convenience concerns of
flex-fuel vehicle owners meant that they do not invariably make economically rational decisions.
Subsequently, we will review our results in the context of these cultural dimensions.
3. Data Description
Before we discuss our multi-generation model of the Brazilian vehicle market, we will first
describe the data available for analysis. The main covariate in this study is the Tax over Industrialized
Products (IPI), a Brazilian federal tax applied to any manufactured national or imported product and can
only be modified by governmental decrees. Each product has a different rate based on the incentive or
restriction the government intends to promote. Since IPI taxpayers are wholesalers and retailers, the tax
rate has a direct impact on the final product price. Current rates are available at the Brazilian Ministry of
Finance (MF, 2018); however, a historical series is not available. The Brazilian Automotive Industry
Association (ANFAVEA, 2018, 1994) has collated data for the tax rate applied to gasoline and
ethanol/flex passenger vehicles of 1 to 2-litre engine capacity. These figures are available from 1987 for
11
both gasoline and ethanol vehicles. For years without a tabulated rate, we extrapolate the rate from the
last available observation, see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Federal Taxes Over Passenger Vehicles (ANFAVEA, 2018)
Vehicle sales data are taken from the Brazilian Automotive Industry Association
(ANFAVEA, 2018). However, it is important to note that cars are durable goods with a finite life span,
we must consider the fleet size and its composition to distinguish real year-by-year new adoptions from
replacement purchases. We apply a scrapping curve, a statistical estimation of vehicles removed from the
fleet due to total loss accidents, theft without recovery, dismantling and abandonment. Studies showed
that vehicle scrapping can be expressed by a Gompertz function (see Andersen et al., 2007; CETESB,
2017; Zachariadis et al., 1995). The Gompertz function used is shown in (1)
St=1−exp (−exp (a+bt ) ) (1)
12
where St is the surviving fraction of vehicles, t years after purchase. Both a and b values were
parameterised for cars (1.798 and 0.137, respectively) using the Brazilian National Household Sample
Survey (IBGE, 1988; MMA, 2014). By applying this scrapping curve to the vehicle sales data, we
estimate each year's operating fleet, its growth and composition. In Figure 2, we see the estimated fleet
sizes of gasoline, ethanol and flex vehicles plotted over time, the two oil shocks and the ethanol shock are
also shown.
Figure 2. Cumulative Adoptions (Estimated with data from ANFAVEA, 2018)
We see that the growth in the size of the Brazilian gas vehicle fleet slows in the mid-1970s as
a consequence of the first oil crisis, followed by a recovery. In 1979, ethanol vehicles were introduced,
in 1985 their sales represented more than 95% of total vehicle sales, in 1986 their sales peaked at almost
700 thousand units. After the ethanol shock, at the beginning of the 1990s, growth in gasoline vehicle
sales resumes, and ethanol vehicles sales drop to less than 1% of new cars. Flex-fuel vehicle adoptions in
Brazil started in 2003 and overtook gasoline vehicle sales in only two years. Since 2007, flex-fuel has a
yearly market share of about 90%.
13
4. The Multi-Generation, Multi-Country Model and its Estimation
In order to capture the changing dynamics of the Brazilian vehicle market and the effects of the
changing fiscal environment, we propose a multi-generation model in discrete time which draws on the
generalised Bass model (Bass et al., 1994). There are several alternative models for single generation
diffusion processes (e.g., Meade and Islam 2006; 2015); however, unlike the Bass model, these do not
typically generalise to multiple generations. Massiani and Gohs (2015) point out the difficulty of
choosing adequate parameters for a Bass Model of the diffusion of automotive technologies. They find
that most studies present a wide range of estimated parameters that show no pattern and thus cannot be
adopted reliably in future studies. We address this issue by applying a multi-generational model that can
estimate different parameters for newer technologies substituting for earlier ones. The model development
into three generations follows Norton and Bass (1987) and uses further developments by Danaher et al.
(2001), Jiang and Jain (2012) and Stremersch et al. (2010). We draw on the approach of Stremersch et al.
(2010) with necessary revisions and the inclusion of a marketing factor.
4.1. The multi-generational model structure
We consider three generations, denoted by the subscripts G, E and F, for gasoline, ethanol
and flex respectively. At time t, the fleet sizes or numbers of cumulative adopters in each generation are
YGt, YEt and YFt. An increase in fleet size may occur due to a fresh adoption, the numbers of fresh adoption
in each generation are AGt, AEt and AFt, alternatively a change will occur due to an adopter upgrading from
one generation to another. Upgraders from gas to ethanol are denoted by UGEt, from gas to flex, UGFt, and
from ethanol to flex UEft. Thus, the gasoline vehicle fleet size at time t is
Y ¿=A¿−U ¿ ,t−UGF , t (2)
14
we denote the period to period change using lower case, e.g. y¿=Y ¿−Y ¿−1, thus it follows that
y¿=a¿−u¿ ,t−uGF ,t (2a)
The ethanol vehicle fleet size at time t is
Y Et=AEt+U ¿ ,t−U EF , t (3)
and the period to period change is
y Et=aEt+u¿, t−uEF , t (3a)
Thirdly, the flex vehicle fleet size at time t is
Y Ft=AFt+UGF ,t+U EF ,t (4)
and the period to period change is
y Ft=aFt+uGF ,t+uEF ,t (4a)
We hypothesis that there are mG potential adopters of the gasoline car, those who would eventually adopt
a gasoline vehicle if no alternatives became available. There are mE additional potential adopters of
ethanol vehicle and mF incremental adopters of a flex vehicle. Figure 3 illustrates the dynamics of this
multi-generation adoption process.
15
Figure 3. Flow Diagram of multi-generation adoption process
In our study, we were able to observe only the cumulative number of current adopters of
each generation, YGt, YEt and YFt, the adopters of gasoline, ethanol and flex cars respectively. In equations
(1), (2) and (3), we hypothesise that these observable variables aggregate six underlying, but unobserved,
adoption processes: AGt, AEt , AFt, UGEt, UGFt, UEft. The total number of potential adopters for gasoline
vehicles mG; for ethanol vehicles is mG + mE of ethanol cars, and for flex vehicles is mG + mE + mF.
The approach of the discrete generalised Bass model (Bass et al., 1994) is that the number of
adopters in a time interval is a random variable determined by the conditional probability of adoption and
the number of possible adopters, with an additive noise term as shown for the gasoline generation in (5).
a¿={( pG+qG( Y G(t−1)
mG)) x¿}[mG−Y G (t−1)]+ε¿ (5)
16
mFmEmG
Gasoline Car Adopters, AG
Upgraders, UGE
New Ethanol Adoptors, AE
New Flex Adoptors, AF
Upgraders, UEF
Upgraders, UGF
Considering gasoline cars before the introduction of ethanol cars, the number of adoptions of
gasoline cars per period at time t is τG ≤ t<τ E. The Bass coefficients p and q are the coefficient of
innovation and the coefficient of imitation, respectively, we interpret q as the effect of word of mouth.
The marketing factor xt is used to reflect the tax environment, ε ¿ is a noise term representing the random
variation in this adoption process. The coefficients p, q and x are estimated for each generation and are
identified by a subscript G, E or F. Note that before ethanol and flex cars are introduced,Y ¿≡ A¿, after
the introduction of the ethanol and flex generations, YGt is modified by (2), in recognition of the erosion of
potential adoptions due to upgrading. The observability of gasoline adoptions is now decreased, but we
can still discern the relative importance of gasoline adoptions and upgrading. For example, when the
cumulative number of gasoline users decreases, we can tell that upgrading is dominating gasoline
adoption.
When the cumulative number of gasoline adoptions decreases, the magnitude of this
decrease forms a lower bound on the number of ethanol cars bought by upgraders. The upper bound on
the number of ethanol cars purchased by upgraders is the number of gasoline car users in the previous
period. For upgraders, the market factor is the relative benefit offered by the ethanol generation compared
to the gasoline cars, which these upgraders currently enjoy, see (6).
uGEt={(q¿( Y E (t−1)
mG+mE)) xEt}[Y G (t−1)]+ε GEt (6)
The remaining new ethanol car adopters are relatively observable in aggregate coming from the new
potential created by ethanol cars, see (7).
17
aEt={( pE+qE( Y E (t−1)
mG+mE))x Et}[mE−AE (t−1)−U EF ( t−1 ) ]+εEt (7)
Upon the introduction of the flex generation, its cumulative number of adoptions comes from three
different sources: flex new adoptions, upgraders from gasoline cars and ethanol cars, see (4) and (4a).
The same assumptions underlying (6) are used to model the adoptions of flex cars originating from
upgraders from gasoline and ethanol cars, see (8) and (9) respectively.
uGFt={(qGF( Y F (t−1)
mG+mE+mF)) xFt}[Y G (t −1)]+εGFt (8)
uEFt={(qEF( Y F (t−1)
mG+mE+mF)) xFt}[Y E (t−1)]+εEFt (9)
The remaining new flex car users are relatively observable in aggregate; these are adoptions from the new
potential created by flex cars (Equation 10).
aFt={( pF +qF( Y F (t−1)
mG+mE+mF))xFt }[mF−AF ( t−1 )]+εFt (10)
The marketing effort factor is used to capture the impact of government tax rates described
in Section 3, see (11a), (11b) and (11c).
x¿=exp ( βGTAX ¿) (11a)
xEt=exp ( βE TAX Et ) (11b)
18
xFt=exp ( βF TAX ¿) (11c)
5. Results
Following Stremersch et al. (2010), we estimated the parameters of the multigeneration model
described in Section 4 using SAS 9.4 by using the seemingly unrelated regression option on the PROC
MODEL procedure. The parameter estimates are given in Table 1, while the overall performance can be
seen in Figure 4, which shows the data alongside the model predictions for gasoline, ethanol, and flex
vehicles. The model has captured both the move away from gasoline technology, represented by negative
adoptions during the first half of the 1980 and since 2005, and the relative failure of ethanol technology.
The model fit (R²) for the three technologies is 68%, 33%, and 94%, respectively. The reasons for the
relatively poor fit for the ethanol generation become clear as we go through the implications of the
parameter estimates.
Figure 4 Model and Data Comparison for Vehicle Technologies in Brazil (1957-2017)
19
Looking first at the values of the estimated market potentials in Table 1, the potential for gasoline
vehicles is 33.53 million; for ethanol cars, the potential is not significantly different from zero; for flex
vehicles, the increased potential is 25.93 million. Thus, in total, the model predicts about 60 million
vehicles in the long run, in December 2017, the market penetration is 35 million, of which flex vehicles
represent 74% of the fleet, gasoline 25% and ethanol 1%. The model captures the failure of ethanol car
diffusion as it failed to bring new people into the market.
The market for gasoline vehicles behaves like that of a single technology model, with
significant coefficients of innovation (pG = 0.029, p= 0.008) and imitation (qG = 0.876, p < 0.001).
Likewise, the market for flex vehicles has parameters of similar sign and magnitude, (pF = 0.033, p =
0.024, qF = 1.022, p < 0.001). The exception is the model for ethanol vehicles which presents a high value
for innovation coefficient (pE = 1.06, p < 0.001), and a negative imitation coefficient (qE = -5.32, p =
0.06). According to Meade and Islam (2006), this corresponds to a pure innovation scenario, where the
adoption curve follows a modified exponential. As discussed by Mahajan et al. (1984), imitation (word of
mouth) can be favourable, unfavourable or indifferent towards a product. Here, it has acted against the
diffusion of ethanol vehicles. These findings show that the model’s parameters are consistent with the
loss of trust faced by this technology during the ethanol shock period, as described in our literature
review1. For flex vehicles, we -have a low estimate of coefficient of innovation (pG = 0.003, p = 0.024)
for flex-fuel as it is modified version of ethanol cars but flex-fuel received strong word of mouth impact
(qF = 1.02, p < 0.001).
We investigated whether innovation acceleration occurred across successive generations of
technologies. Acceleration happens when the difference between the two parameters is positive and
significant (Pae and Lehmann, 2003); thus, our model indicates a significant acceleration when
comparing ethanol and gasoline cars (pE – pG = 1.028, p < 0.001), which confirms that the diffusion of
1 A negative word-of-mouth parameter for nuclear energy was also found by Guidolin and Guseo (2016) when studying the possible effects of the energy transition that is going on in Germany.
20
ethanol vehicles was entirely driven by innovation. The flex vehicle market has a higher diffusion speed
than gasoline, but the difference is not statistically significant (qF – qG = 0.15, p = 0.47).
21
Table 1. Parameter Estimates of the multigeneration model
Parameters Estimate Std Error t Value Pr > |t|
Gasoline
Adopters
Innovation pG 0.029 0.011 2.74 0.008
Word-of-Mouth qG 0.876 0.154 5.70 <.001
Market Potential mG 33.531 4.613 7.27 <.001
Tax Coefficient βG -0.042 0.004 -9.98 <.001
Ethanol
Adopters
Innovation pE 1.057 0.228 4.63 <.001
Word-of-Mouth qE -5.316 2.768 -1.92 0.060
Market Potential mE -0.023 0.036 -0.63 0.530
Tax Coefficient βE -0.048 0.013 -3.77 0.004
Flex
Adopters
Innovation pF 0.003 0.001 2.32 0.024
Word-of-Mouth qF 1.022 0.154 6.64 <.001
Market Potential mF 25.927 0.585 44.33 <.001
Tax Coefficient βF -0.012 0.016 -0.77 0.443
Upgraders Gasoline to Ethanol q¿ 0.541 0.313 1.73 0.090
Gasoline to Flex qGF 0.075 0.032 2.33 0.024
Ethanol to Flex qEF -0.071 0.097 -0.74 0.464
Considering the effect of taxation, represented by the marketing effort parameter, βs, we see that
the effect of the tax rate is significantly negative for gasoline (βG = -0.042, p < 0.001) and ethanol
vehicles (βE = -0.048, p = 0.004). Thus, for these two generations, the effect of taxation is to stifle
adoption. However, for flex vehicles, the effect of taxation is not significant, indicating that the stifling
effect of taxation has been reduced or virtually removed. Finally, considering the parameters of the
22
upgrading processes, we see a positive and significant (leapfrogging) upgrading from gasoline to flex
vehicles (qGF = 0.075, p = 0.024), a marginally significant upgrading from gasoline to ethanol cars (qGE =
0.541, p = 0.09). There is no significant evidence of upgrading from ethanol to flex vehicles. The
estimated values of the 15 parameters in this multi-generational model are not independent of each other -
in the appendix in Panel A, Table A.1, we show the correlations between parameter estimates. Although
the majority of correlations are low, showing a lack of dependence between parameter estimates, there are
some exceptions. For the adoption of ethanol vehicles, we see a high negative correlation between the
coefficients of innovation and imitation. This indicates that it is difficult to separate the effects of these
two processes. The estimate of the potential for gasoline cars is highly correlated with the adoption
parameters of ethanol, pE, qE, βE and the upgrading parameter from gasoline to ethanol, qGE. The difficulty
experienced by the model in separating the potential of the gasoline vehicle from the adoption of ethanol
vehicles is reflected in the negative correlation between the residuals of the model for gasoline and
ethanol vehicles, shown in the appendix in Panel B, Table A.1.
The estimates of the coefficients of imitation in our study, qG = 0.88, qF = 1.02, are very high
compared to the average of Sultan et al.'s (1990) meta-analysis result of q = 0.38. This accords with the
extant literature ((Tellis et al., 2003; Van den Bulte and Stremersch, 2004) which suggests that a country
like Brazil (collective society, high on power distance and uncertainty avoidance) will have above
average imitation coefficients. Nardon and Aten's (2008) study provides an insightful interpretation of
the high innovation coefficient for ethanol ( pE), arguing that the development of the Alcohol Program is a
manifestation of the Brazilian cultural characteristic of being able to quickly adapt to adversity and
having the flexibility to incorporate sudden change. The impact of institutions on diffusion is captured by
the negative tax coefficients on the probability of adoptions, i.e. lowering tax increases the probability of
adoption.
6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
23
This article has adapted a multi-generation innovation diffusion model to evaluate the impact
of governmental incentives on the diffusion of three vehicular technologies in Brazil. Two modifications
were made. ‘Leapfrogging’ was introduced to capture the frequently observed phenomenon of an adopter
of gasoline switching to flex technology, skipping the ethanol technology. A marketing factor was
introduced to the multigenerational model to capture the effect of the tax/incentive scheme, the main
instrument used by the Brazilian government’s Alcohol Program. The literature-based assumption that tax
exemptions can increase the diffusion rates of technologies is tested. Our results reinforce this narrative
by showing the negative effect of taxes on adoptions of gasoline and ethanol vehicles but not for flex
vehicles in Brazil. The markets for the first generation of vehicle fuel technology, gasoline, and the third
generation, flex vehicles, behave as smooth, well behaved, S-shaped diffusion models.
The ethanol vehicle’s experience demonstrates that even though incentives are necessary for
the beginning, in the long run, some level of self-sustainability must be achieved. Our results showed that
ethanol vehicle adoptions were mainly due to innovation by new adopters from a pool of insignificant
magnitude, with some upgrading from gasoline. The model captured the consumers' loss of confidence in
ethanol vehicles, evidenced by a negative word-of-mouth (Moutinho dos Santos and Parente, 2006).
The flex vehicle technology represents, as both data and model suggest, the mainstream
technology in the country. Although still consuming some gasoline, flex vehicles are the main current
strategy for Brazil to achieve its CO2 reduction goals in transportation. Since the diffusion of flex vehicles
occurred predominantly by positive word-of-mouth, it seems that, regardless of any setback in the ethanol
industry, flex vehicles will remain the dominant mainstream technology.
Our results have policy implications for countries wishing to introduce a new generation of
vehicle technology. Tax reduction is necessary for the first steps to the diffusion process; however,
policymakers should not only rely on these incentives. Since cars are durable goods, word-of-mouth plays
an important role in the long run. For flex vehicles, the versatility of being able to choose which fuel is
preferred can be considered the main relative advantage.
24
Fuel price stability is a marketing variable that is likely to have an impact on the continued
adoption or discontinuance of ethanol technology, and it deserves further studies. In addition, as potential
future research, there is the possibility of a 4th technological generation of hybrid-electric flex cars in the
Brazilian vehicle market. Toyota indicates that its first model will start being produced in Brazil by the
end of 2019 (Muniz and Gasques, 2018). Such technological innovation that allows the use of electricity
for vehicle traction would represent an efficiency improvement over both flex and current hybrid electric
vehicles.
References
Aguirre, M., Ibikunle, G., 2014. Determinants of renewable energy growth : A global sample analysis.
Energy Policy 69, 374–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.036
Al-Alawi, B.M., Bradley, T.H., 2013. Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle market
modeling Studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 190–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.048
Andersen, F.M., Larsen, H. V., Skovgaard, M., 2007. A European model for the number of End-of-Life
Vehicles. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag. 7, 343–355.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2007.017065
ANFAVEA, 2018. Brazilian Automotive Industry Yearbook. Brazilian Automotive Industry Association,
São Paulo and Brasilia.
ANFAVEA, 1994. Brazilian Automotive Industry Yearbook. Brazilian Automotive Industry Association,
São Paulo and Brasilia.
Baran, R., Legey, L.F.L., 2013. The introduction of electric vehicles in Brazil: Impacts on oil and
electricity consumption. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80, 907–917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.024
Bass, F., 1969. A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables. Manage. Sci. 15, 215–227.
25
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.15.5.215
Bass, F.M., Krishnan, T. V, Jain, D.C., 1994. Why the Bass Model Fits without Decision Variables.
Mark. Sci. 33, 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.13.3.203
Bastian-Pinto, C., Brandão, L., de Lemos Alves, M., 2010. Valuing the switching flexibility of the
ethanol-gas flex fuel car. Ann. Oper. Res. 176, 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0514-7
Bastin, C., Szklo, A., Rosa, L.P., 2010. Diffusion of new automotive technologies for improving energy
efficiency in Brazil’s light vehicle fleet. Energy Policy 38, 3586–3597.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.036
Benvenutti, L.M.M., Ribeiro, A.B., Forcellini, F.A., Maldonado, M.U., 2016. The Effectiveness of Tax
Incentive Policies in the Diffusion of Electric and Hybrid Cars in Brazil, in: 41o Congresso
Latinoamericano de Dinamica de Sistemas. São Paulo.
Benvenutti, L.M.M., Ribeiro, A.B., Uriona, M., 2017. Long term diffusion dynamics of alternative fuel
vehicles in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 1571–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.051
Brito, T., Moutinho dos Santos, E., Rousseau, I., Nava, P.C., 2012. The Dialectics of Energy Security and
Nations Interdependence: Reflections Focused on the Role of Oil and the Brazilian Dimension, in:
Monié, F., Binsztok, J. (Eds.), Petroleum Geography and Geopolitics. Mauad X, Rio de Janeiro, pp.
15–50.
Brito, T.L.F., Moutinho dos Santos, E., Galbieri, R., Costa, H.K.D.M., 2017. Qualitative Comparative
Analysis of cities that introduced compressed natural gas to their urban bus fleet. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.077
Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P.L., 2004. The Future Demand for Alternative Fuel Passenger Vehicles: A
Diffusion of Innovation Approach. The California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
CETESB, 2017. Vehicle Emissions in São Paulo State 2016. São Paulo State Environmental Company,
São Paulo.
Coelho, S.T., Goldemberg, J., Lucon, O., Guardabassi, P., 2006. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol: lessons
learned. Energy Sustain. Dev. 10, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60529-3
26
Collantes, G.O., 2007. Incorporating stakeholders ’ perspectives into models of new technology
diffusion : The case of fuel-cell vehicles 74, 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.02.001
Cordellini, D.F., 2018. Ethanol on biofuels structure in Brazil. FAE J. 21, 19–35.
Danaher, P.J., Hardie, B.G.S., Putsis, W.P., 2001. Marketing-Mix Variables and the Diffusion of
Successive Generations of a Technological Innovation. J. Mark. Res. 38, 501–514.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.4.501.18907
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited : Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147–160.
Duarte, R.G., Rodrigues, S.B., 2017. Co-evolution of industry strategies and government policies: The
case of the brazilian automotive industry. BAR - Brazilian Adm. Rev. 14, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2017160100
Egbue, O., Long, S., 2012. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An analysis of consumer
attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.009
Ferreira, A., Kunh, S.S., Fagnani, K.C., De Souza, T.A., Tonezer, C., Dos Santos, G.R., Coimbra-Araújo,
C.H., 2018. Economic overview of the use and production of photovoltaic solar energy in Brazil.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.102
Freitas, I.M.B., Dantas, E., Iizuka, M., 2012. The Kyoto mechanisms and the diffusion of renewable
energy technologies in the BRICS. Energy Policy 42, 118–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.055
Furtado, A.T., Scandiffio, M.I.G., Cortez, L.A.B., 2011. The Brazilian sugarcane innovation system.
Energy Policy 39, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.023
Gnann, T., Plötz, P., 2015. A review of combined models for market diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles
and their refueling infrastructure. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 783–793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.022
Goldemberg, J., 2007. Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future. Science (80-. ). 315, 808–810.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1137013
27
Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Guardabassi, P., 2008. The sustainability of ethanol production from
sugarcane. Energy Policy 36, 2086–2097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.028
Goldemberg, J., Coelho, S.T., Nastari, P.M., Lucon, O., 2004. Ethanol learning curve - The Brazilian
experience. Biomass and Bioenergy 26, 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00125-9
Goldemberg, J., Schaeffer, R., Szklo, A., Lucchesi, R., 2014. Oil and natural gas prospects in South
America: Can the petroleum industry pave the way for renewables in Brazil? Energy Policy 64, 58–
70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.064
Guidolin, M., Guseo, R., 2016. The German energy transition : Modeling competition and substitution
between nuclear power and Renewable Energy Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60,
1498–1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.022
Guidolin, M., Mortarino, C., 2010. Cross-country diffusion of photovoltaic systems: Modelling choices
and forecasts for national adoption patterns. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77, 279–296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.003
Guler, I., Guillén, M.F., Macpherson, J.M., Guillen, M.F., 2002. Global Competition, Institutions, and the
Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates.
Adm. Sci. Q. 47, 207–232. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094804
Hofstede’s Insights, 2019. Country Comparison [WWW Document]. URL https://www.hofstede-
insights.com/country-comparison/brazil/ (accessed 7.10.19).
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ibenholt, K., 2002. Explaining learning curves for wind power. Energy Policy 30, 1181–1189.
IBGE, 1988. National Survey by Household Sample (PNAD). Rio de Janeiro.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III
Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
28
Isabella, G., Yu, A.S.O., Silva, A.M. Da, Pegetti, A.L., 2017. Another driver of the Brazilian fuel ethanol
supply chain: the consumers’ preferences. Rev. Adm. 52, 304–316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2017.05.003
Islam, T., Meade, N., 1997. The Diffusion of Successive Generations of a Technology: A More General
Model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 56, 49–60.
Islam, T., Meade, N., 1996. Forecasting the development of the market for business telephones in the UK.
J. Oper. Res. Soc. 47, 906–918. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1996.116
Jenn, A., Springel, K., Gopal, A.R., 2018. Effectiveness of electric vehicle incentives in the United States.
Energy Policy 119, 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.065
Jeon, S.Y., 2010. Hybrid & Electric vehicle technology and its market feasibility. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Jiang, Z., Jain, D.C., 2012. A Generalized Norton–Bass Model for Multigeneration Diffusion. Manage.
Sci. 58, 1887–1897. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1529
Jun, D. BIN, Park, Y.S., 1999. A Choice-Based Diffusion Model for Multiple Generations of Products.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 58, 45–58.
Kim, K.H., Shon, Z.H., 2011. Long-term changes in PM10 levels in urban air in relation with air quality
control efforts. Atmos. Environ. 45, 3309–3317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.033
King, J.L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K.L., McFarlan, F.W., Raman, K.S., Yap, C.S., 1994. Institutional
Factors in Information Technology Innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 5, 139–169.
Kloess, M., Müller, A., 2011. Simulating the impact of policy, energy prices and technological progress
on the passenger car fleet in Austria-A model based analysis 2010-2050. Energy Policy 39, 5045–
5062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.008
Langbroek, J.H.M., Franklin, J.P., Susilo, Y.O., 2016. The effect of policy incentives on electric vehicle
adoption. Energy Policy 94, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.050
Leibowicz, B.D., 2018. Policy recommendations for a transition to sustainable mobility based on
historical diffusion dynamics of transport systems. Energy Policy 119, 357–366.
29
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.066
Lieven, T., Rietmann, N., 2018. Do policy measures in fact promote electric mobility? A study across 20
countries. Int. J. Transp. Dev. Integr. 2, 39–48. https://doi.org/10.2495/TDI-V2-N1-39-48
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., Kerin, R.A., 1984. Introduction Strategy for New Products with Positive and
Negative Word-of-Mouth. Manag. Sci. 30, 1389–1404.
Masini, A., Frankl, P., 2002. Forecasting the diffusion of photovoltaic systems in southern Europe : A
learning curve approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70, 39–65.
Massiani, J., Gohs, A., 2015. The choice of Bass model coefficients to forecast diffusion for innovative
products: An empirical investigation for new automotive technologies. Res. Transp. Econ. 50, 17–
28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.06.003
Meade, N., Islam, T., 2015. Modelling European usage of renewable energy technologies for electricity
generation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 497–509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.03.007
Meade, N., Islam, T., 2006. Modelling and forecasting the diffusion of innovation – A 25-year review.
Int. J. Fore 22, 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.01.005
Mesquita, D.L., Borges, A.F., Sugano, J.Y., Santos, A.C. dos, 2013. O desenvolvimento de processos de
inovação sob a ótica da teoria dos custos de transação: o caso da tecnologia flex-fuel. Rev. Adm. e
Inovação 10, 119–140. https://doi.org/10.5773/rai.v10i1.1081
Meyer, P.E., Winebrake, J.J., 2009. Modeling technology diffusion of complementary goods: The case of
hydrogen vehicles and refueling infrastructure. Technovation 29, 77–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.05.004
MF, 2018. Table of Incidence of the Tax over Product Industrialized (TIPI). Brazilian Ministry of
Finance, Brasilia,.
MMA, 2014. 2nd National Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions by Motor Road Vehicles. Ministry of
Environment, Brasilia, Brazil.
Moreira, J.R., Goldemberg, J., 1999. The alcohol program. Energy Policy 27, 229–245.
30
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00005-1
Moreira, J.R., Nogueira, L.A.H., Parente, V., 2005. Biofuels for Transport, Development, and Climate
Change: Lessons from Brazil, in: Bradley, R., Baumert, K.A. (Eds.), Growing in the Greenhouse:
Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First. World Resources Institute, p. 132.
Mouette, D., Machado, P.G., Fraga, D., Peyerl, D., Borges, R.R., Brito, T.L.F., Shimomaebara, L.A.,
Moutinho dos Santos, E., 2019. Costs and emissions assessment of a Blue Corridor in a Brazilian
reality: The use of liquefied natural gas in the transport sector. Sci. Total Environ. 668, 1104–1116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.255
Moutinho dos Santos, E., Parente, V., 2006. The Second Alcohol Shock in Brazil - Looking for More
Flexibility, in: International Association of Energy Economics. Potsdam.
Muniz, G.B., Gasques, M.V., 2018. É do Brasil: Toyota Confirma Produção do Primeiro Carro Híbrido
Flex do Mundo. Revista Autoesporte.
Muñoz, M., Oschmann, V., David Tàbara, J., 2007. Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws
in the European Union. Energy Policy 35, 3104–3114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.11.006
Nardon, L., Aten, K., 2008. Beyond a better mousetrap: A cultural analysis of the adoption of ethanol in
Brazil. J. World Bus. 43, 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.008
Nastari, P.M., 1983. The role of sugar cane in Brazil’s history and economy. Iowa State University.
Negro, S.O., Alkemade, F., Hekkert, M.P., 2012. Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A
review of innovation system problems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 3836–3846.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.043
Norton, J.A., Bass, F.M., 1987. A Diffusion Theory Model of Adoption and Substitution for Successive
Generations of High-Technology Products. Manage. Sci. 33, 1069–1086.
Pae, J.H., Lehmann, D.R., 2003. Multigeneration innovation diffusion: The impact of intergeneration
time. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 31, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302238601
Pefley, R.K., Pullman, J.B., Suga, T.P., Espinola, S., 1980. Feedback controlled fuel injection system can
accommodate any alcohol-gasoline blend, in: International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels
31
Technology. São Paulo, pp. 247–253.
Peter, R., 2002. Conceptual model for marketing solar based technology to developing countries. Renew.
Energy 25, 511–524.
Pfeiffer, B., Mulder, P., 2013. Explaining the diffusion of renewable energy technology in developing
countries. Energy Econ. 40, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.07.005
Pinto, J.T.M., Amaral, K.J., Janissek, P.R., 2016. Deployment of photovoltaics in Brazil: Scenarios,
perspectives and policies for low-income housing. Sol. Energy 133, 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.048
Puglieri, R., 2013. Analysis of the Sugar-Alcohol Industry Under the Optics of the Competition Defense:
How to Define Relevant Markets. University of São Paulo.
Rao, K.U., Kishore, V.V.N., 2010. A review of technology diffusion models with special reference to
renewable energy technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 1070–1078.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.007
Rao, K.U., Kishore, V.V.N., 2009. Wind power technology diffusion analysis in selected states of India.
Renew. Energy 34, 983–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.08.013
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. Free Press, New York.
Rosenzweig, P.M., Singh, J. V., 1991. Organizational Environments and the Multinational Enterprise.
Acadamy Manag. Rev. 16, 340–361.
Shi, X., Fernandes, K., Chumnumpan, P., 2014. Diffusion of multi-generational high-technology
products. Technovation 34, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.11.008
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., Van Wee, B., 2014. The influence of financial incentives and other
socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 68, 183–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043
Speece, M.W., Maclachlan, D.L., 1992. Forecasting Fluid Milk Package Type with a Diffusion Model.
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 39.
Stremersch, S., Muller, E., Peres, R., 2010. Does new product growth accelerate across technology
32
generations? Mark. Lett. 21, 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9095-0
Struben, J., Sterman, J.D., 2008. Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle and transportation
systems. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 35, 1070–1098. https://doi.org/10.1068/b33022t
Sultan, F., Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R., 1990. A Meta-Analysis of Applications of Diffusion Models. J.
Mark. Res. 27, 70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172552
Teixeira, E.C., 2005. The Development of Flex-Fuel Technology in Brazil. Instituto DNA Brasil, São
Paulo.
Tellis, G.J., Stremersch, S., Yin, E., 2003. The International Takeoff of New Products: The Role of
Economics, Culture, and Country Innovativeness. Mark. Sci. 22, 188–208.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.22.2.188.16041
UNFCCC, 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement - Conference of the Parties COP 21. Proposal by the
President. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
https://doi.org/FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1
Van den Bulte, C., Stremersch, S., 2004. Social Contagion and Income Heterogeneity in New Product
Diffusion: A Meta-Analytic Test. Mark. Sci. 23, 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0054
Versluis, C., 2002. DRAMs, fiber and energy compared with three models of market penetration.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 69, 263–286.
Wansart, J., Schnieder, E., 2010. Modeling market development of electric vehicles. 2010 IEEE Int. Syst.
Conf. 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSTEMS.2010.5482453
Yu, A.S.O., Nascimento, P.T.D.S., Nigro, F.E.B., Frederick, B.W.B., Varandas, J.A., Vieira, S.F.A.,
Rocha, R.L., 2010. The evolution of flex-fuel technology in Brazil: The Bosch case. Technol.
Manag. Glob. Econ. Growth (PICMET), 2010 Proc. PICMET ’10 1250–1260.
Zachariadis, T., Samaras, Z., Zierock, K.H., 1995. Dynamic modeling of vehicle populations: An
engineering approach for emissions calculations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 50, 135–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(95)00057-H
Zhu, Y., Tokimatsu, K., Matsumoto, M., 2015. A Diffusion model for Natural Gas Vehicle : A case study
33
in Japan. Energy Procedia 75, 2987–2992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.607
34
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the RCGI – Research Centre for Gas Innovation, hosted by the
University of São Paulo (USP) and sponsored by FAPESP – São Paulo Research Foundation
(2014/50279-4) and Shell Brasil. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. This research was
conducted when Thiago was a visiting doctoral student at the Department of Marketing and Consumer
Studies, University of Guelph, Canada.
35
Appendix
Table A1. Correlation matrix of parameter estimates and residuals
Panel A: Correlation Matrix of Parameter Estimates
pG qG pE qE pF qF mG mE mF βG βE βF q¿ qGF qEF
pG 1.00
qG -0.19 1.00
pE 0.40 0.21 1.00
qE -0.42 -0.11 -0.90 1.00
pF -0.03 -0.07 -0.29 0.18 1.00
qF 0.22 0.13 0.42 -0.45 0.20 1.00
mG 0.32 0.21 0.80 -0.85 0.02 0.57 1.00
mE -0.47 0.27 -0.11 0.21 -0.09 -0.18 -0.28 1.00
mF 0.32 0.15 0.11 -0.14 0.15 0.17 0.20 -0.17 1.00
βG -0.18 -0.74 -0.17 0.03 0.08 -0.01 0.02 -0.24 -0.17 1.00
βE 0.04 0.17 0.31 -0.65 -0.02 0.33 0.63 -0.19 0.12 0.17 1.00
βF -0.01 0.04 0.10 -0.07 -0.37 -0.74 -0.01 0.04 -0.31 -0.04 0.04 1.00
q¿ -0.26 0.41 0.58 -0.61 -0.04 0.44 0.82 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.62 0.02 1.00
qGF -0.57 -0.28 -0.11 0.12 -0.01 -0.15 -0.14 0.23 -0.50 0.37 -0.08 0.00 0.12 1.00
36
qEF 0.29 -0.18 -0.39 0.46 -0.26 -0.29 -0.47 0.00 0.12 -0.13 -0.41 0.08 -0.61 -0.44 1.00
Panel B: Correlation Matrix of Residuals
Gasoline Ethanol Flex
Gasoline 1.00
Ethanol -0.68 1.00
Flex 0.00 -0.12 1.00
37