IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v31y2009i2p231-246..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Regulation and Innovation Offsets in the Bluegrass Seed Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron G. Benson
  • C. Richard Shumway

Abstract

Burning bluegrass seed stubble is an important production practice that, among other benefits, increases production and stand life of this perennial crop. Despite economic forecasts that higher production costs from the 1996 state ban on seed stubble burning would reduce Washington production by up to 30%, output in the years 1998–2005 was nearly two-thirds higher than in any previous eight-year period. This study seeks to explain why that paradoxical behavior occurred. This study puts forward and systematically tests several hypotheses. The only hypothesis with any support, innovation offsets, is examined by an assessment of contemporaneous innovations and by corroborative statistical evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron G. Benson & C. Richard Shumway, 2009. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation Offsets in the Bluegrass Seed Industry," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 231-246.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:31:y:2009:i:2:p:231-246.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2009.01435.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Houck, James P., 1976. "Analyzing the Impact of Government Programs on Crop Acreage," Technical Bulletins 158119, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ruttan, Vernon W, 1997. "Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory and Path Dependence:," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(444), pages 1520-1529, September.
    4. 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.
    5. James A. Chalfant, 1984. "Comparison of Alternative Functional Forms with Application to Agricultural Input Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(2), pages 216-220.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Altman, Morris, 2001. "When green isn't mean: economic theory and the heuristics of the impact of environmental regulations on competitiveness and opportunity cost," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 31-44, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Everett, Tim & Ishwaran, Mallika & Ansaloni, Gian Paolo & Rubin, Alex, 2010. "Economic growth and the environment," MPRA Paper 23585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    10. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Adam B. Jaffe & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2004. "Technology Policy for Energy and the Environment," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 35-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. 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.
    13. Tiziana La Rocca & Maurizio La Rocca & Francesco Fasano & Alfio Cariola, 2023. "Does a country's environmental policy affect the value of small and medium sized enterprises liquidity in the energy sector?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 277-290, January.
    14. Martin, Ralf, 2009. "Why is the US so energy intensive? Evidence from US multinationals in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. 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.
    16. DeCanio, Stephen J. & Watkins, William E., 1998. "Information processing and organizational structure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 275-294, August.
    17. Thierry Bréchet & Philippe Michel, 2007. "Environmental performance and equilibrium," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 1078-1099, November.
    18. Rayenda Khresna Brahmana & Maria Kontesa, 2021. "Does clean technology weaken the environmental impact on the financial performance? Insight from global oil and gas companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3411-3423, November.
    19. Batie, Sandra S. & Arcenas, Agustin, 1998. "Toward Agricultural Environmental Management: Applying Lessons From Corporate Environmental Management," Staff Paper Series 11807, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:oup:revage:v:31:y:2009:i:2:p:231-246.. 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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.