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! ]

Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-level Perspective

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Pizer, William () (Resources for the Future)
Morgenstern, Richard () (Resources for the Future)
Shih, Jhih-Shyang () (Resources for the Future)

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

Abstract

The possibility that workers could be adversely affected by environmental policies imposed on heavily regulated industries has led to claims of a "jobs versus the environment" trade-off by both business and labor leaders. The present research examines this claim at the industry level for four heavily polluting industries: pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills. By focusing on labor effects across an entire industry, we construct a measure relevant to the concerns of key stakeholders, such as labor unions and trade groups. We decompose the link between environmental regulation and employment into three distinct components: factor shifts to more or less labor intensity, changes in total expenditures, and changes in the quantity of output demanded. We use detailed plant-level data to estimate the key parameters describing factor shifts and changes in total expenditures. We then use aggregate time-series data on industry supply shocks and output responses to estimate the demand effect. We find that increased environmental spending generally does not cause a significant change in industry-level employment. Our average across all four industries is a net gain of 1.5 jobs per $1 million in additional environmental spending, with a standard error of 2.2 jobs—an insignificant effect. In the plastics and petroleum sectors, however, there are small but significantly positive effects: 6.9 and 2.2 jobs, respectively, per $1 million in additional expenditures. These effects can be linked to favorable factor shifts—environmental spending is more labor intensive than ordinary production—and relatively inelastic estimated demand.

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 page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-99-01-REV.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-99-01-rev.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 May 1999
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-99-01-rev

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.rff.org
More information through EDIRC

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

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

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. Eli Berman & Linda T. Bui, 1997. "Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin," Papers 0082, Boston University - Industry Studies Programme.
    Other versions:
  2. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R, 1980. "Global Properties of Flexible Functional Forms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 422-32, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Diewert, Erwin, 2007. "Index Numbers," UBC Departmental Archives diewert-07-01-03-08-17-23, UBC Department of Economics, revised 31 Jan 2007. [Downloadable!]
  4. Randy A. Becker & J. Vernon Henderson, 1999. "Costs of Air Quality Regulation," NBER Working Papers 7308, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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. Matthew A. Cole & Rob J. Elliott, 2007. "Do Environmental Regulations Cost Jobs? An Industry-Level Analysis of the UK," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 7(1). [Downloadable!]
  2. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  3. Lynn Mainwaring & Richard Jones & David Blackaby, 2006. "Devolution, sustainability and GDP convergence: Is the Welsh agenda achievable?," Regional Studies, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 679-689, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-8.


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.