IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v84y2008i4p689-700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distribution of Environmental Costs and Benefits, Additional Distortions, and the Porter Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Robert D. Mohr
  • Shrawantee Saha

Abstract

The Porter Hypothesis argues that environmental regulations benefit firms by fostering innovation. We discuss four examples consistent with this idea, highlighting either the distribution of benefits or costs, or the presence of some additional distortion, other than pollution. Examples are organized according to the list of market failures. Adding any one market failure creates the possibility that firms benefit from regulations. While each example can be fully consistent with the Porter Hypothesis, it is also possible that regulations benefit firms even without fostering innovation, a result that would be empirically difficult to distinguish from the Porter Hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:4:p:689-700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/4/689
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    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. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    2. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, April.
    3. Hart, Rob, 2004. "Growth, environment and innovation--a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1078-1098, November.
    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. Marius Ley, Tobias Stucki, and Martin Woerter, 2016. "The Impact of Energy Prices on Green Innovation," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    2. repec:ebl:ecbull:eb-17-00194 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Sen, Suphi, 2015. "Corporate governance, environmental regulations, and technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 36-61.
    4. 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.
    5. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2641-2654.
    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. repec:eee:enepol:v:114:y:2018:i:c:p:245-261 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. André, Francisco J. & de Castro, Luis Miguel, 2015. "Scarcity Rents and Incentives for Price Manipulation in Emissions Permit Markets with Stackelberg Competition," MPRA Paper 61770, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Elisabetta Magnani & Adeline Tubb, 2012. "Green R&D, Technology Spillovers, and Market Uncertainty: An Empirical Investigation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 685-709.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:4:p:689-700. 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: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

    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.