Some Micro-Evidence on the "Porter Hypothesis" from Austrian VOC Emission Standards
This paper presents some micro-evidence relevant to the "Porter Hypothesis" on the techno-economic consequences of Austrian Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emission standards, the most restrictive of their kind in the world. Using firm-level survey data and complementing it with highly disaggregated foreign trade data, the paper explores whether the standards had a palpable impact on the competitiveness of Austrian manufacturers of paints, coatings, printing inks, and adhesives, whether compliance stimulated innovation in this industry, whether the standards crowded out other, more productive Research and Development (R&D), and whether compliance efforts gave rise to unexpected benefits of compliance. It finds no unequivocal aggregate impact on the competitiveness of regulated firms, yet does find some interesting variation with firm size. Moreover, the standards appear to have dampened import competition. The standards gave rise to considerable changes in firms' product range and appear to have accelerated the rate of product innovation in the regulated industry. R&D spending to develop compliant products is found to be very unevenly distributed, mainly due to technological and, to a lesser extent, organizational factors. There is evidence that compliance efforts displaced or postponed existing R&D projects. However, there is also evidence that search for compliant products yielded unexpected and beneficial ideas, knowledge, and competencies. Copyright 2003 Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky..
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 34 (2003)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0017-4815|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=0017-4815|
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.:
- Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1998.
"Environmental Policy and Competitiveness : The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital,"
1998-38, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- 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.
- Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1999. "Environmental policy and competitiveness : The Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital," Other publications TiSEM cfb3ecf9-1a3c-4325-ac1d-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Lanjouw, Jean Olson & Mody, Ashoka, 1996. "Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 549-571, June.
- Carlo Carraro & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2000.
"Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy: Introduction,"
Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University
0011, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
- Carlo Carraro & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2000. "Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy Introduction," NBER Working Papers 7648, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
- Xinpeng Xu, 2000. "International Trade and Environmental Regulation: Time Series Evidence and Cross Section Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 233-257, November.
- William Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Wilson, 2000.
"Reexamining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve,"
NBER Working Papers
7711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- William T. Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Molloy Wilson, 2002. "Reexamining The Empirical Evidence For An Environmental Kuznets Curve," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 541-551, August.
- William Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Wilson, 2000. "Reexamining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve," Working Papers gueconwpa~00-00-07, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 2007. "Environmental Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier.
- repec:ner:tilbur:urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-80402 is not listed on IDEAS
- Arik Levinson, 1999.
"An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs,"
NBER Working Papers
7297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Arik Levinson, 2001. "An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs," NBER Chapters, in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 131-158 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Arik Levinson, 1999. "An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs," Working Papers gueconwpa~00-00-08, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:growch:v:34:y:2003:i:3:p:359-379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.