IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/99305.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effects of competition forms and market structure on green innovation incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Iwata, Hiroki

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effects of environmental policy on green innovation. We compare the incentives for green innovation in both the Cournot and Bertrand competition. It is shown that positive incentives for green innovation exist in both competition models. When environmental regulations are imposed, the effects of the probability of success on green innovation incentives differ between the Bertrand and Cournot competition. Additionally, we clarify the conditions necessary for the establishment of the Porter hypothesis in both competition models.

Suggested Citation

  • Iwata, Hiroki, 2020. "Effects of competition forms and market structure on green innovation incentives," MPRA Paper 99305, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:99305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99305/1/MPRA_paper_99305.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Innes, Robert & Bial, Joseph J, 2002. "Inducing Innovation in the Environmental Technology of Oligopolistic Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 265-287, September.
    2. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Permits, Standards, and Technology Innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 23-44, July.
    3. Lambertini, Luca & Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2017. "Cournot competition and “green” innovation: An inverted-U relationship," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 116-123.
    4. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Vertical differentiation in a Cournot industry: The Porter hypothesis and beyond," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 374-380.
    5. D’Amato, Alessio & Dijkstra, Bouwe R., 2015. "Technology choice and environmental regulation under asymmetric information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 224-247.
    6. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2002. "Market Structure and Environmental Innovation," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 5, pages 293-325, November.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    8. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    9. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    10. Requate, Till, 1998. "Incentives to innovate under emission taxes and tradeable permits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 139-165, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Greaker, Mads, 2006. "Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: A new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 411-420, July.
    13. Jing Cao & Larry D. Qiu & Mohan Zhou, 2016. "Who invests more in advanced abatement technology? Theory and evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(2), pages 637-662, May.
    14. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    15. Fischer, Carolyn & Parry, Ian W. H. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 523-545, May.
    16. Qiu, Larry D. & Zhou, Mohan & Wei, Xu, 2018. "Regulation, innovation, and firm selection: The porter hypothesis under monopolistic competition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 638-658.
    17. Greaker, Mads & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 246-259, November.
    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. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    2. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Karp, Larry S., 2008. "Correct (and misleading) arguments for using market based pollution control policies," CUDARE Working Papers 42868, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. Frondel, Manuel & Horbach, Jens & Rennings, Klaus, 2008. "What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 153-160, May.
    6. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Optimal emission taxation and the Porter hypothesis under Bertrand competition," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 755-765, September.
    7. Dagmar Nelissen & Till Requate, 2007. "Pollution-reducing and resource-saving technological progress," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1), pages 5-44.
    8. 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.
    9. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    10. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson C.D. Silva, 2017. "Asymmetric Innovation Agreements under Environmental Regulation," CESifo Working Paper Series 6782, CESifo.
    11. Luca Lambertini & Giuseppe Pignataro & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "Competition among coalitions in a cournot industry: a validation of the porter hypothesis," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 679-713, October.
    12. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    13. Lee, Jaegul & Veloso, Francisco M. & Hounshell, David A., 2011. "Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1240-1252.
    14. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson Caputo Delfino Silva, 2022. "Endogenous Abatement Technology Agreements under Environmental Regulation," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-30, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Grischa Perino, 2010. "Technology Diffusion with Market Power in the Upstream Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 403-428, August.
    17. repec:zbw:rwidps:0015 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Manuel Frondel & Jens Horbach & Klaus Rennings, 2004. "What Triggers Environmental Management and Innovation? – Empirical Evidence for Germany," RWI Discussion Papers 0015, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    19. Larry Karp & Jiangfeng Zhang, 2016. "Taxes Versus Quantities for a Stock Pollutant with Endogenous Abatement Costs and Asymmetric Information," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 493-533, Springer.
    20. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2012. "Investment Incentives Under Emission Trading: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 229-249, October.
    21. Mehdi Fadaee & Luca Lambertini, 2015. "Non-tradeable pollution permits as green R&D incentives," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 27-42, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cournot and Bertrand competition; Green innovation; Porter hypothesis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:99305. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.