IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Environmental efficiency and labour productivity: Trade-off or joint dynamics? A theoretical investigation and empirical evidence from Italy using NAMEA

Author Info

Listed author(s):
  • Mazzanti, Massimiliano
  • Zoboli, Roberto

Abstract

In this paper we test an adapted EKC hypothesis to verify the relationship between 'environmental efficiency' (namely emissions per unit of value added) and labour productivity (value added per employee). We exploit NAMEA data on Italy for 29 sector branches and 6 categories of air emissions for the period 1991-2001. We employ data on capital stock and trade openness to test the robustness of our results. On the basis of the theoretical and empirical analyses focusing on innovation, firm performances and environmental externalities, we would expect a positive correlation between environmental efficiency and labour productivity -- a negative correlation between the emissions intensity of value added and labour productivity -- which departs from the conventional mainstream view. The hypothesis tested is a critical one within the longstanding debate on the potential trade-off or complementarity between environmental preservation and economic performance, which is strictly associated with the role of technological innovation. We find that for most air emission categories there is a positive relationship between labour productivity and environmental efficiency. Labour productivity dynamics, then, seem to be complementary to a decreasing emissions intensity in the production process. Taking a disaggregate sector perspective, we show that the macro-aggregate evidence is driven by sector dynamics in a non-homogenous way across pollutants. Services tend always to show a 'complementary' relationship, while industry seems to be associated with inverted U-shape dynamics for greenhouse gases and nitrogen oxides. This is in line with our expectations. In any case, EKC shapes appear to drive such productivity links towards complementarity. The extent to which this evidence derives from endogenous market forces, industrial and structural change, and policy effects is discussed by taking an evolutionary perspective to innovation and by referring to impure public goods arguments.

Download Info

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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00385-6
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): 68 (2009)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
Pages: 1182-1194

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:1182-1194
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Keywords: NAMEA Air emissions Labour productivity Sector value added Capital stock Environmental efficiency Technological innovation;

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. Rennings, Klaus, 2000. "Redefining innovation -- eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 319-332, February.
  2. Andreas Löschel, 2009. "Impure public goods and technological interdependencies," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 36(6), pages 596-615, October.
  3. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
  4. Costantini, Valeria & Monni, Salvatore, 2008. "Environment, human development and economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 867-880, February.
  5. Giovanni S. F. Bruno, 2005. "Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel-data models with a small number of individuals," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 473-500, December.
  6. Bruno, Giovanni S.F., 2005. "Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 361-366, June.
  7. Berndt, Ernst R & Wood, David O, 1975. "Technology, Prices, and the Derived Demand for Energy," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 57(3), pages 259-268, August.
  8. Wayne B Gray & Ronald J Shadbegian, 1994. "Pollution Abatement Costs, Regulation And Plant-Level Productivity," Working Papers 94-14, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  9. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1995. "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-208, April.
  10. Alan Collins & Richard I. D. Harris, 2005. "The Impact Of Foreign Ownership And Efficiency On Pollution Abatement Expenditure By Chemical Plants: Some Uk Evidence," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(5), pages 747-768, November.
  11. Keld Laursen & Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 243-263, March.
  12. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
  13. 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.
  14. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Zoboli, Roberto, 2006. "Economic instruments and induced innovation: The European policies on end-of-life vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 318-337, June.
  15. Cainelli, Giulio & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2007. "Social capital and innovation dynamics in district-based local systems," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 932-948, December.
  16. Cole, Matthew A., 2003. "Development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the Environmental Kuznets Curve?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(04), pages 557-580, October.
  17. Kotchen, Matthew J., 2005. "Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 281-300, March.
  18. Berndt, Ernst R & Wood, David O, 1979. "Engineering and Econometric Interpretations of Energy-Capital Complementarity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 342-354, June.
  19. 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.
  20. Koetse, Mark J. & de Groot, Henri L.F. & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2008. "Capital-energy substitution and shifts in factor demand: A meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2236-2251, September.
  21. Pier Saviotti & Andreas Pyka, 2004. "Economic development by the creation of new sectors," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-35, January.
  22. Boscolo, Marco & Vincent, Jeffrey R., 2003. "Nonconvexities in the production of timber, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 251-268, September.
  23. Judson, Ruth A. & Owen, Ann L., 1999. "Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 9-15, October.
  24. Karvonen, Minna-Maari, 2001. "Natural versus manufactured capital: win-lose or win-win? A case study of the Finnish pulp and paper industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 71-85, April.
  25. Rubbelke, Dirk T. G., 2003. "An analysis of differing abatement incentives," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 269-294, August.
  26. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Anna Montini & Roberto Zoboli, 2008. "Environmental Kuznets Curves for Air Pollutant Emissions in Italy: Evidence from Environmental Accounts (NAMEA) Panel Data," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 277-301.
  27. 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.
  28. Kajal Lahiri, 2005. "Analysis of Panel Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1093-1095.
  29. Kiviet, Jan F., 1995. "On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 53-78, July.
  30. Erik Dietzenbacher & Kakali Mukhopadhyay, 2007. "An Empirical Examination of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis for India: Towards a Green Leontief Paradox?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 427-449, April.
  31. Grubler, Arnulf & Nakicenovic, Nebojsa & Victor, David G., 1999. "Dynamics of energy technologies and global change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 247-280, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

as
in new window


Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Access and download statistics

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:4:p:1182-1194. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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.