IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies

  • Costantini, Valeria
  • Crespi, Francesco

The pollution haven hypothesis affirms that an open market regime will encourage the flow of low-technology polluting industries toward developing countries because of potential comparative advantages related to low environmental standards. In contrast, the hypothesis suggested by Porter and van der Linde claims that innovating firms operate in a dynamic competitive situation which allows global diffusion of environmental-friendly technologies. Environmental regulation may represent a relevant mechanism through which technological change is induced. In this way, countries that are subject to more stringent environmental regulations may become net exporters of environmental technologies. This paper provides new evidence on the evolution of export flows of environmental technologies across different countries for the energy sector. Advanced economies, particularly the European Union, have increasingly focused on the role of energy policies as tools for sustaining the development path. The Kyoto Protocol commitments, together with growing import dependence on energy products, have brought attention to the analysis of innovation processes in this specific sector. The analysis uses a gravity model in order to test the determinants and the transmission channels through which environmental technologies for renewable energies and energy efficiency are exported to advanced and developing countries. Our results are consistent with the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis where environmental regulation represents a significant source of comparative advantages. What strongly emerges is that the stringency of environmental regulation supplemented by the strength of the National Innovation System is a crucial driver of export performance in the field of energy technologies.

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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 66 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2-3 (June)
Pages: 447-460

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:447-460
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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.:

as in new window
  1. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
  2. Vollebergh, Herman R.J. & Kemfert, Claudia, 2005. "The role of technological change for a sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 133-147, August.
  3. David Hummels & James Levinsohn, 1993. "Monopolistic Competition and International Trade: Reconsidering the Evidence," NBER Working Papers 4389, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Jerneja Jug & Daniel Mirza, 2005. "Environmental Regulations in Gravity Equations: Evidence from Europe," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(11), pages 1591-1615, November.
  5. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 137-154, February.
  6. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 1998. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," Discussion Papers dp-98-12-rev, Resources For the Future.
  7. 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.
  8. Buchanan, James M & Tullock, Gordon, 1975. "Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls Versus Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 139-47, March.
  9. Brunnermeier, Smita B. & Cohen, Mark A., 2003. "Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 278-293, March.
  10. Alan Deardorff, 1998. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," NBER Chapters, in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 7-32 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2004. "A Tale of Two Market Failures: Technology and Environmental Policy," Discussion Papers dp-04-38, Resources For the Future.
  12. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 281-316, April.
  13. Bovenberg, A.L. & Smulders, J.A., 1993. "Environmental quality and pollution-saving technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model," Discussion Paper 1993-21, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  14. Josh Ederington & Arik Levinson & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Footloose and Pollution-Free," NBER Working Papers 9718, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
  16. Parry, Ian & Pizer, William & Fischer, Carolyn, 1998. "Instrument Choice for Environmental Protection When Technological Innovation is Endogenous," Discussion Papers dp-99-04, Resources For the Future.
  17. de Melo, Jaime & Grether, Jean-Marie, 2003. "Globalization and Dirty Industries: Do Pollution Havens Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3932, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  18. Roghieh Gholami & Sang-Yong Tom Lee & Almas Heshmati, 2010. "The Causal Relationship between Information and Communication Technology and Foreign Direct Investment," Working Papers id:3196, eSocialSciences.
  19. Dasgupta, Susmita & Hamilton, Kirk & Pandey, Kiran D. & Wheeler, David, 2006. "Environment During growth: Accounting for governance and vulnerability," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1597-1611, September.
  20. Lans Bovenberg, A. & Smulders, Sjak, 1995. "Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 369-391, July.
  21. 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.
  22. Copeland,B.R. & Taylor,M.S., 2000. "Free trade and global warming : a trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol," Working papers 4, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  23. Popp, David, 2006. "International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 46-71, January.
  24. Cees van Beers, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2003. "Environmental regulation impacts on international trade: aggregate and sectoral analyses with a bilateral trade flow model," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 14-29.
  25. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Ronald Steenblik, 2005. "Liberalisation of Trade in Renewable-Energy Products and Associated Goods: Charcoal, Solar Photovoltaic Systems, and Wind Pumps and Turbines," OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers 2005/7, OECD Publishing.
  27. Archibugi, Daniele & Coco, Alberto, 2004. "A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 629-654, April.
  28. Lanoie, Paul & Laplante, Benoit & Roy, Maite, 1998. "Can capital markets create incentives for pollution control?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 31-41, July.
  29. Arik Levinson & M. Scott Taylor, 2008. "Unmasking The Pollution Haven Effect," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(1), pages 223-254, 02.
  30. William A. Brock & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Economic Growth and the Environment: A Review of Theory and Empirics," NBER Working Papers 10854, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. Hoekman, Bernard M. & Maskus, Keith E. & Saggi, Kamal, 2004. "Transfer of technology to developing countries : unilateral and multilateral policy options," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3332, The World Bank.
  32. Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2006. "Notes on CEPII’s distances measures," MPRA Paper 26469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  33. Wolfgang Keller, 2004. "International Technology Diffusion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 752-782, September.
  34. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Discussion Papers dp-00-47, Resources For the Future.
  35. Robert C. Feenstra & James R. Markusen & Andrew K. Rose, 2001. "Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 430-447, May.
  36. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA.
  37. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 1996. "Does Economic Geography Matter for International Specialization?," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1773, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  38. 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.
  39. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
  40. Cerin, Pontus, 2006. "Bringing economic opportunity into line with environmental influence: A discussion on the Coase theorem and the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 209-225, February.
  41. Letchumanan, Raman & Kodama, Fumio, 2000. "Reconciling the conflict between the 'pollution-haven' hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, January.
  42. Wheeler, David, 2001. "Racing to the bottom : foreign investment and air pollution in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2524, The World Bank.
  43. Popp, David, 2005. "Lessons from patents: Using patents to measure technological change in environmental models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 209-226, August.
  44. J. Neary, 2006. "International Trade and the Environment: Theoretical and Policy Linkages," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 95-118, 01.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 2007. "Environmental Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier.
  48. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-16, March.
  49. Bretschger, Lucas, 2005. "Economics of technological change and the natural environment: How effective are innovations as a remedy for resource scarcity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 148-163, August.
  50. Bommer, Rolf, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Industrial Competitiveness: The Pollution-Haven Hypothesis Reconsidered," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 342-55, May.
  51. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
  52. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1998. "The Regionalization of the World Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number fran98-1, July.
  53. Altman, Morris, 2001. "When green isn't mean: economic theory and the heuristics of the impact of environmental regulations on competitiveness and opportunity cost," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 31-44, January.
  54. Jaffe Adam B. & Stavins Robert N., 1995. "Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages S43-S63, November.
  55. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

  1. Technology Assessment

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:447-460. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.