How charging subsidy methods and phase-out rates affect the expansion of the new energy vehicle market: an evolutionary game study

Purpose As electric vehicle owners prioritize the overall driving experience, charging inconveniences hinder the market expansion of new energy vehicles (NEV), which is crucial for addressing social, energy and environmental challenges. To alleviate this concern, regional governments in China have introduced various policies for charging infrastructure; however, the effectiveness of different subsidy methods and their phase-outs remain unclear in both theory and practice. Design/methodology/approach This study develops an evolutionary game model for local governments and consumers to analyze the impact of three different subsidy methods, phase-out rates and their combinations on NEV market expansion. This considers subsidies for private or public charging infrastructure construction and charging costs. Actual subsidy schemes are compared to clarify the differences and gaps between theory and reality. Findings The phase-out of subsidies for charging infrastructure can facilitate the stable expansion of the NEV market. Subsidies for privately charged infrastructure construction are more effective than the other two subsidy methods. A high initial private subsidy with a low phase-out rate is better than moderate and uniformly high or low subsidies. The promotional effects of high and low levels of both initial private subsidies and phase-out rates are comparable, with higher initial subsidies leading to lower total fiscal expenditures. Originality/value This study examines the full lifecycle of charging infrastructure subsidies and analyzes the effectiveness of subsidy policies over a long-term timeframe, advancing research in this field along the time dimension. Notably, the three combinations of subsidy amounts and phase-out speeds can support market growth while reducing fiscal pressure. Comparison with actual subsidy schemes further refines the proposed schemes to better align with real-world conditions. Our findings offer governments forward-looking recommendations for the strategic planning of subsidy policy development paths.