IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v41y2008i4p519-539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis

Author

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Desrochers, 2008. "Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(4), pages 519-539, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:41:y:2008:i:4:p:519-539
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-008-9208-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-008-9208-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-008-9208-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumgartner, Stefan & Dyckhoff, Harald & Faber, Malte & Proops, John & Schiller, Johannes, 2001. "The concept of joint production and ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 365-372, March.
    2. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    3. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Mohr, Robert D., 2002. "Technical Change, External Economies, and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 158-168, January.
    5. W.H. Richmond, 1978. "John A. Hobson: Economic Heretic," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 283-294, July.
    6. Robert Murray Haig, 1926. "Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis: I. Some Speculations Regarding the Economic Basis of Urban Concentration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 40(2), pages 179-208.
    7. John R. Commons, 1904. "Labor Conditions in Meat Packing and The Recent Strike," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 19(1), pages 1-32.
    8. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. William E. Spellman, 1979. "The Economics of Edward Alsworth Ross," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 129-140, April.
    10. Smith, V Kerry & Walsh, Randy, 2000. "Do Painless Environmental Policies Exist?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 73-94, July.
    11. Don Fullerton & Robert Stavins, 1998. "How economists see the environment," Nature, Nature, vol. 395(6701), pages 433-434, October.
    12. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    13. A. E. Dingle, 1982. "‘The Monster Nuisance of All’: Landowners, Alkali Manufacturers, and Air Pollution, 1828–64," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 35(4), pages 529-548, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    2. Grothe, Oliver & Müsgens, Felix, 2013. "The influence of spatial effects on wind power revenues under direct marketing rules," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 237-247.
    3. Zylicz, Tomasz, 2010. "Goals and Principles of Environmental Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(4), pages 299-334, May.
    4. Justin Doran & Geraldine Ryan, 2014. "Eco-Innovation – does additional engagement lead to additional rewards?," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(11), pages 1110-1130, November.
    5. Pierre Desrochers, 2012. "Freedom Versus Coercion in Industrial Ecology: A Reply to Boons," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(2), pages 78-99, May.
    6. Grothe, Oliver & Müsgens, Felix, 2012. "The influence of spatial effects on wind power revenues under direct marketing rules," EWI Working Papers 2012-7, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    7. Leppälä, Samuli & Desrochers, Pierre, 2010. "The division of labor need not imply regional specialization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(1-2), pages 137-147, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Desrochers, Pierre & Haight, Colleen E., 2014. "Squandered profit opportunities? Some historical perspective on industrial waste and the Porter Hypothesis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 179-189.
    2. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco, 2008. "Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 447-460, June.
    3. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    4. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    5. Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf & Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 442-451.
    6. Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "The Evolution Of Environmental Economics: A View From The Inside," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 62(02), pages 251-274, June.
    7. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Giovanni Marin & Antonello Zanfei, 2019. "Does host market regulation induce cross‐border environmental innovation?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 2089-2119, July.
    9. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    10. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    11. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30, October.
    12. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    13. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Erik Hille & Patrick Möbius, 2019. "Environmental Policy, Innovation, and Productivity Growth: Controlling the Effects of Regulation and Endogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1315-1355, August.
    15. Bréchet, Thierry & Jouvet, Pierre-André, 2009. "Why environmental management may yield no-regret pollution abatement options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1770-1777, April.
    16. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    17. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2641-2654.
    18. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    19. Giovanni Marin & Francesca Lotti, 2017. "Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(1), pages 125-148.
    20. Arguedas, Carmen & van Soest, Daan P., 2009. "On reducing the windfall profits in environmental subsidy programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 192-205, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Porter Hypothesis; By-products; Private property rights; Common law; Win-win innovation; L21; O18; Q53; Q55; Q56; R11;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L21 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Business Objectives of the Firm
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:41:y:2008:i:4:p:519-539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.