IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v70y1994i2p199-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation stochastique et coût de la réglementation environnementale

Author

Listed:
  • Kennedy, Peter

    (Département d’économique, Université de Victoria)

Abstract

This paper illustrates that the cost of regulation can be negative when regulation-induced innovation has a stochastic element. There are two aspects to this finding. First, if the firm is risk neutral then regulation necessarily raises expected costs but costs can be lower ex post for some realizations of the innovation process. Whether this cost reduction is most likely for unfavourable or favourable realizations of the stochastic element depends on whether good fortune and research effort are substitutes or complements in the innovation process. The second aspect involves the implications of risk aversion and risk preference. In both cases it is possible for regulation to reduce costs on average because the regulation can induce the firm to undertake a level of research closer to that which minimizes expected cost. Cette étude démontre que le coût de la réglementation peut être négatif quand l’innovation induite par la réglementation a un élément stochastique. Ce résultat comporte deux aspects. Premièrement, si l’entreprise est neutre envers le risque, la réglementation fait nécessairement augmenter les coûts attendus, mais les coûts peuvent être inférieurs ex post pour certaines réalisations du processus d’innovation. Le fait que cette réduction de coûts sera plus probable pour des réalisations favorables ou défavorables de l’élément stochastique dépend de ce que la chance et l’effort de recherche sont des substituts ou des compléments du processus d’innovation. Le second aspect met en cause les implications de l’aversion au risque ou du goût pour le risque. Dans les deux cas, il est possible que la réglementation fasse diminuer les coûts en moyenne puisqu’elle peut inciter la firme à entreprendre un niveau de recherche plus proche de celui qui minimise le coût espéré.

Suggested Citation

  • Kennedy, Peter, 1994. "Innovation stochastique et coût de la réglementation environnementale," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 70(2), pages 199-209, juin.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:70:y:1994:i:2:p:199-209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/602142ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J.B. Smith & W A. Sims, 1985. "The Impact of Pollution Charges on Productivity Growth in Canadian Brewing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(3), pages 410-423, Autumn.
    2. Dale W. Jorgenson & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 1990. "Environmental Regulation and U.S. Economic Growth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(2), pages 314-340, Summer.
    3. Gray, Wayne B, 1987. "The Cost of Regulation: OSHA, EPA and the Productivity Slowdown," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 998-1006, December.
    4. Maloney, Michael T. & Yandle, Bruce, 1984. "Estimation of the cost of air pollution control regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 244-263, September.
    5. Barbera, Anthony J. & McConnell, Virginia D., 1990. "The impact of environmental regulations on industry productivity: Direct and indirect effects," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 50-65, January.
    6. Christainsen, Gregory B & Haveman, Robert H, 1981. "Public Regulations and the Slowdown in Productivity Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 320-325, 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. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    2. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Giovanni Marin & Susanna Mancinelli & Francesco Nicolli, 2015. "Carbon dioxide reducing environmental innovations, sector upstream/downstream integration and policy: evidence from the EU," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 709-735, November.
    3. Charles Dufour & Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry, 1998. "Regulation and Productivity," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 233-247, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Charles Dufour & Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry, 1995. "Regulation and Productivity in the Quebec Manufacturing Sector," CIRANO Working Papers 95s-12, CIRANO.
    6. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2007. "Survol des fondements théoriques de l’hypothèse de Porter," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 83(3), pages 399-413, septembre.
    7. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2001. "Productivité et réglementation environnementale: une analyse de l'hypothèse de Porter," Cahiers de recherche 0107, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    8. Trotignon, Jérôme, 2010. "La Restriction des émissions de CO2 pénalise-t-elle les exportations? Un modèle de gravité avec données de panel et variables muettes régionales," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(1), pages 5-33, mars.
    9. 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.
    10. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Philippe Barla & Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2008. "Environmental Regulation as a Coordination Device for the Introduction of a Green Product: The Porter’s Hypothesis Revisited," Discussion Paper Series 2008_04, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised May 2008.
    12. Bianco, Dominique, 2020. "Does Entrepreneurial Behaviour Matter for the Strong Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 100116, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Chanteau, Jean-Pierre, 2011. "L’économie de la responsabilité sociétale d’entreprise (RSE) :éléments de méthode institutionnaliste," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 9.
    14. Jérôme Trotignon, 2010. "La restriction des émissions de CO2 pénalise-t-elle les exportations ? Un modèle de gravité avec données de panel et variables muettes régionales," Post-Print halshs-00477244, HAL.

    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. Lanoie, Paul & Laplante, Benoît & Tanguay, Georges A., 1994. "La firme et l’environnement," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 70(2), pages 97-111, juin.
    2. 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.
    3. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    4. Johan Brolund & Robert Lundmark, 2017. "Effect of Environmental Regulation Stringency on the Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Charles Dufour & Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry, 1995. "Regulation and Productivity in the Quebec Manufacturing Sector," CIRANO Working Papers 95s-12, CIRANO.
    6. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2001. "Productivité et réglementation environnementale: une analyse de l'hypothèse de Porter," Cahiers de recherche 0107, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    7. You Wu & Jichuan Sheng & Fang Huang, 2015. "China’s future investments in environmental protection and control of manufacturing industry: lessons from developed countries," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 77(3), pages 1889-1901, July.
    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. Chabowski, Brian & Chiang, Wen-Chyuan & Deng, Kailing & Sun, Li, 2019. "Environmental inefficiency and bond credit rating," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 17-37.
    10. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    11. Hamamoto, Mitsutsugu, 2006. "Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-312, November.
    12. Richard D. Morgenstern & William A. Pizer & Jhih-Shyang Shih, 2001. "The Cost Of Environmental Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 732-738, November.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Pizer, William A. & Kopp, Raymond, 2005. "Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1307-1351, Elsevier.
    16. Minna Halme & Jyrki Niskanen, 2001. "Does corporate environmental protection increase or decrease shareholder value? The case of environmental investments," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(4), pages 200-214, July.
    17. Albrizio, Silvia & Kozluk, Tomasz & Zipperer, Vera, 2017. "Environmental policies and productivity growth: Evidence across industries and firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 209-226.
    18. 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.
    19. Fumitoshi Mizutani & Eri Nakamura, 2017. "How do governance factors affect inefficiency? Stochastic frontier analysis of public utility firms in Japan," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(3), pages 267-289, September.
    20. He, Yiqing & Ding, Xin & Yang, Chuchu, 2021. "Do environmental regulations and financial constraints stimulate corporate technological innovation? Evidence from China," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).

    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:ris:actuec:v:70:y:1994:i:2:p:199-209. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

    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: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.