IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/compst/v29y2014i6p1543-1570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic activity analysis model-based win-win development forecasting under environment regulations in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shiyi Chen
  • Wolfgang Härdle

Abstract

Porter hypothesis states that environmental regulation may lead to win-win opportunities, that is, improve the productivity and reduce the undesirable output simultaneously. Based on directional distance function, this paper proposes a novel dynamic activity analysis model to forecast the possibilities of win-win development in Chinese industry between 2011 and 2050. The consistent bootstrap estimation procedures are also developed for statistical inference of the point forecasts. The evidence reveals that the appropriate energy-saving and emission-abating regulation will significantly result in both the net growth of potential output and the increasing growth of total factor productivity for most industrial sectors in a statistical sense. This favors Porter hypothesis. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Shiyi Chen & Wolfgang Härdle, 2014. "Dynamic activity analysis model-based win-win development forecasting under environment regulations in China," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1543-1570, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:compst:v:29:y:2014:i:6:p:1543-1570
    DOI: 10.1007/s00180-014-0505-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00180-014-0505-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00180-014-0505-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boyd, Gale A. & McClelland, John D., 1999. "The Impact of Environmental Constraints on Productivity Improvement in Integrated Paper Plants," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 121-142, September.
    2. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf & Carl A Pasurka, Jr., 2001. "Accounting for Air Pollution Emissions in Measures of State Manufacturing Productivity Growth," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 381-409, August.
    3. Fried, Harold O. & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Shelton S. (ed.), 1993. "The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195072181, Decembrie.
    4. Lee, Cheng F. & Lin, Sue J. & Lewis, Charles & Chang, Yih F., 2007. "Effects of carbon taxes on different industries by fuzzy goal programming: A case study of the petrochemical-related industries, Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4051-4058, August.
    5. Robin C. Sickles & Mary L. Streitwieser, 1998. "An analysis of technology, productivity, and regulatory distortion in the interstate natural gas transmission industry: 1977-1985," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 377-395.
    6. Shiyi Chen, 2011. "The Abatement of Carbon Dioxide Intensity in China: Factors Decomposition and Policy Implications," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34, pages 1148-1167, July.
    7. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 1999. "Estimating and bootstrapping Malmquist indices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 459-471, June.
    8. Chen, Shiyi & Jefferson, Gary H. & Zhang, Jun, 2011. "Structural change, productivity growth and industrial transformation in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 133-150, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 49-61, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Greaker, Mads, 2006. "Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: A new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 411-420, July.
    15. Sudhakara Reddy, B. & Assenza, Gaudenz B., 2009. "The great climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2997-3008, August.
    16. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    17. Faucheux, Sylvie & Nicolai, Isabelle, 1998. "Environmental technological change and governance in sustainable development policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 243-256, December.
    18. Byung M. Jeon & Robin C. Sickles, 2004. "The role of environmental factors in growth accounting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 567-591.
    19. 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.
    20. Gale Boyd & George Tolley & Joseph Pang, 2002. "Plant Level Productivity, Efficiency, and Environmental Performance of the Container Glass Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 29-43, September.
    21. Roughgarden, Tim & Schneider, Stephen H., 1999. "Climate change policy: quantifying uncertainties for damages and optimal carbon taxes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 415-429, July.
    22. Kuosmanen, Timo & Bijsterbosch, Neil & Dellink, Rob, 2009. "Environmental cost-benefit analysis of alternative timing strategies in greenhouse gas abatement: A data envelopment analysis approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1633-1642, April.
    23. 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.
    24. Zhang, Ning & Choi, Yongrok, 2013. "Total-factor carbon emission performance of fossil fuel power plants in China: A metafrontier non-radial Malmquist index analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 549-559.
    25. 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.
    26. Chambers, Robert G. & Chung, Yangho & Fare, Rolf, 1996. "Benefit and Distance Functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 407-419, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shiyi Chen & Wolfgang Karl Härdle, 2012. "Dynamic Activity Analysis Model Based Win-Win Development Forecasting Under the Environmental Regulation in China," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2012-002, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    2. Chen, Shiyi, 2013. "What is the potential impact of a taxation system reform on carbon abatement and industrial growth in China?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 369-386.
    3. Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "Productivity and environmental regulations - A long run analysis of the Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 728, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    4. Philippe Barla & Sergio Perelman, 2005. "Sulphur emissions and productivity growth in industrialised countries," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 275-300, June.
    5. Qiu, Larry D. & Zhou, Mohan & Wei, Xu, 2018. "Regulation, innovation, and firm selection: The porter hypothesis under monopolistic competition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 638-658.
    6. 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.
    7. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    9. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Yuan, Yan & Goto, Mika, 2017. "A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 104-124.
    10. Bréchet, Thierry & Jouvet, Pierre-André, 2009. "Why environmental management may yield no-regret pollution abatement options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1770-1777, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    13. 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.
    14. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Bernard Sinclair Desgagné & Louis-Georges Soler, 2016. "The agro-food industry, public health, and environmental protection: investigating the Porter hypothesis in food regulation," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 127-140, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2008. "A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Leleu, Hervé, 2013. "Shadow pricing of undesirable outputs in nonparametric analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(2), pages 474-480.
    18. Valentin Zelenyuk, 2023. "Productivity analysis: roots, foundations, trends and perspectives," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 229-247, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Subhash C. Ray & Kankana Mukherjee, 2007. "Efficiency in Managing the Environment and the Opportunity Cost of Pollution Abatement," Working papers 2007-09, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.

    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:spr:compst:v:29:y:2014:i:6:p:1543-1570. 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: 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.