IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v21y2000i1p73-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Painless Environmental Policies Exist?

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, V Kerry
  • Walsh, Randy

Abstract

This paper reports an experimental test of the Porter Hypothesis that environmental regulations create innovation offsets that would not otherwise be undertaken. Using a process analysis framework to consistently account for non-separabilities in production and pollution abatement practices, the findings suggest productivity gains can appear to be greater with environmental regulations than without even though they are not. This result which would seem to support the Porter argument, is the result of inadequacies in the methods used to decompose the influences to productivity change. Thus, the experiments offer one explanation for why it has been difficult in practice to reject the hypothesis. Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, V Kerry & Walsh, Randy, 2000. "Do Painless Environmental Policies Exist?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 73-94, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:21:y:2000:i:1:p:73-94
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jianqiao LIU & Gamal ATALLAH, 2009. "Tradable Permits Under Environmental and Cost-reducing R&D," EcoMod2009 21500059, EcoMod.
    2. Martin T. Ross & Michael P. Gallaher & Brian C. Murray & Wanda W. Throneburg & Arik Levinson, 2004. "PACE Survey: Background, Applications, and Data Quality Issues," NCEE Working Paper Series 200409, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jul 2004.
    3. Kneller, Richard & Manderson, Edward, 2012. "Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 211-235.
    4. Pierre Desrochers, 2008. "Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(4), pages 519-539, December.
    5. Pietro Peretto, 2008. "Effluent taxes, market structure, and the rate and direction of endogenous technological change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 113-138, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Patrick Hofstetter & Jane C. Bare & James K. Hammitt & Patricia A. Murphy & Glenn E. Rice, 2002. "Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 833-851, October.
    8. Robert D. Mohr & Shrawantee Saha, 2008. "Distribution of Environmental Costs and Benefits, Additional Distortions, and the Porter Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 689-700.
    9. Fu, Ke & Li, Yanzhi & Mao, Huiqiang & Miao, Zhaowei, 2023. "Firms’ production and green technology strategies: The role of emission asymmetry and carbon taxes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1100-1112.

    More about this item

    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:kap:jrisku:v:21:y:2000:i:1:p:73-94. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.