This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Environmental Porter Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and a Model of Timing of Adoption

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ziesemer, Thomas () (Maastricht University, UNU-MERIT)
Kriechel, Ben () (Maastricht University, ROA)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The Porter Hypothesis postulates that the costs of compliance with environmental standards may be offset by adoption of innovations they trigger. We model this hypothesis using a game of timing of technology adoption. We show that times of adoption are earlier the higher the non-adoption tax. The environmental tax turns the preemption game with low profits into a game with credible precommitment yielding high profits (pro-Porter). If there is a precommitment game without environmental taxes, the introduction of a tax leads to lower profits (anti-Porter). An evaluation of the empirical literature indicates that the Porter hypothesis holds even for profit-maximizing firms under multiple market imperfections such as imperfect competititon, X-inefficiency, and agency costs. These are more likely to be present in sectors with large firms. In many case studies that we evaluate, though, we detect an element of explicit or implicit subsidies for environmentally friendly behaviour, which is in line with Pigovian policies.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2007/wp2007-024.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by United Nations University, Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology in its series UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series with number 024.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dgr:unumer:2007024

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.merit.unu.edu

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Ad Notten).

Related research
Keywords: Environmental Policy Strategic Trade Theory Technology Adoption Porter Hypothesis

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
F1 - International Economics - - Trade
H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
O3 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Abay Mulatu & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Cees A.A.M. Withagen, 2001. "Environmental Regulation and Competitiveness," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-039/3, Tinbergen Institute. [Downloadable!]
  3. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and why does it pay to be green?," Cahiers de recherche 07-04, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. Robert Ayres, 1994. "On economic disequilibrium and free lunch," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(5), pages 435-454, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Hoppe, Heidrun C, 2002. "The Timing of New Technology Adoption: Theoretical Models and Empirical Evidence," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 70(1), pages 56-76, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Smith, V Kerry & Walsh, Randy, 2000. " Do Painless Environmental Policies Exist?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 73-94, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Greaker, Mads, 2003. "Strategic environmental policy; eco-dumping or a green strategy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 692-707, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Thomas Roediger-Schluga, 2003. "Some Micro-Evidence on the "Porter Hypothesis" from Austrian VOC Emission Standards," Growth and Change, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, vol. 34(3), pages 359-379. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  10. Armin Schmutzler, 2001. "Environmental Regulations and Managerial Myopia," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(1), pages 87-100, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  11. Richard Lajeunesse & Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry, 2001. "Environmental Regulation and Productivity: New Findings on the Porter Analysis," CIRANO Working Papers 2001s-53, CIRANO. [Downloadable!]
  12. Martin Klein & Jaqueline Rothfels, . "Can Environmental Regulation of X-Ineffecient Firms Create a -Double Dividend-?," IWH Discussion Papers 103, Halle Institute for Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
  13. Palmer, Karen & Oates, Wallace E & Portney, Paul R, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-32, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Ulph, Alistair, 1996. "Environmental Policy and International Trade when Governments and Producers Act Strategically," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 265-281, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Shunsuke Managi, 2004. "Competitiveness and environmental policies for agriculture: testing the Porter hypothesis," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3), pages 310-324, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There is a FAQ (frequently asked questions).

This page was last updated on 2008-7-9.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.