IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-09-00425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentives for Green R&D in a Dirty Industry under Price Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Indrani Roy chowdhury

    (Jamia Millia islamia)

Abstract

In an oligopolistic framework with price competition, we examine the effect of abatement taxes, as well as emission caps on the incentives for adopting a green technology. We identify two new strategic effects, namely the relative efficiency effect, and the competition softening effect, that affect the incentive for green R&D. Under an abatement tax, R&D incentives increase whenever the new technology is non-drastic, and the demand function is either approximately linear, or not too elastic. Another sufficient condition is that the market size be sufficiently large. With emission caps, the result depends on how green the new technology is.

Suggested Citation

  • Indrani Roy chowdhury, 2009. "Incentives for Green R&D in a Dirty Industry under Price Competition," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(3), pages 2265-2274.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2009/Volume29/EB-09-V29-I3-P72.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Mohr, Robert D., 2002. "Technical Change, External Economies, and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 158-168, January.
    4. Indrani, Roy Chowdhury, 2006. "Re-visiting the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 7899, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Tasnadi, Attila, 1999. "Existence of pure strategy Nash equilibrium in Bertrand-Edgeworth oligopolies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 201-206, May.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Indrani Roy Chowdhury & Sandwip K. Das, 2011. "Environmental regulation, green R&D and the Porter hypothesis," Indian Growth and Development Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(2), pages 142-152, September.
    2. Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2011. "The Porter hypothesis and hyperbolic discounting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 167-176.

    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. 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.
    2. Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2011. "The Porter hypothesis and hyperbolic discounting," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 167-176.
    3. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    5. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2005. "Can Environmental Regulations be Good for Business? an Assessment of the Porter Hypothesis," Cahiers de recherche 0505, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    6. Timothy Swanson & Zacharias Ziegelhoefer, 2011. "Economic Frameworks for thinking about Growth, Sustainability and the role of State Intervention: Paths to Green Economies?," CIES Research Paper series 11-2012, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    7. Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "Productivity and environmental regulations - A long run analysis of the Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 728, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    8. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    9. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    10. Shunsuke Managi & SJames J. Opaluch & Di Jin & Thomas A. Grigalunas, 2005. "Environmental Regulations and Technological Change in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    11. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    12. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    14. de Vries, F.P. & Withagen, C.A.A.M., 2005. "Innovation and environmental stringency : The case of sulfur dioxide abatement," Other publications TiSEM 9f3f79ab-2646-4f72-845c-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Paul Lanoie & Daniel Llerena, 2009. "Des billets verts pour des enterprises agricoles vertes," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(2), pages 155-184.
    16. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    17. Hussain, Salman & Halpin, Lauran & McVittie, Alistair, 2008. "The economic viability of Environmental Management Systems: an application of Analytical Hierarchy Process as a methodological tool to rank trade-offs," Working Papers 61119, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    18. Ben Kriechel & Thomas Ziesemer, 2009. "The environmental Porter hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 267-294.
    19. Marcus Wagner & Nguyen Van Phu & Théophile Azomahou & Walter Wehrmeyer, 2002. "The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: an empirical analysis of the European paper industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 133-146, September.
    20. Klein, Martin & Rothfels, Jacqueline, 1999. "Can Environmental Regulation of X-Ineffecient Firms Create a -Double Dividend-?," IWH Discussion Papers 103/1999, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Abatement tax; emission caps; environmental policy; green R&D; price competition.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00425. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.