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. 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.
    2. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," NBER Working Papers 8420, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    4. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    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. 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.
    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. Ana Sofía Aron & Oswaldo Molina, 2019. "Green Innovation in Natural Resource Industries: The case of Local Suppliers in the Peruvian Mining Industry," Working Papers 145, Peruvian Economic Association.
    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. Bin Li & Peixiang Guo & Yating Zeng, 2019. "The Impact of Haze on the Availability of Company Debt Financing: Evidence for Sustainability of Chinese Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    8. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Amann, Juergen & Cantore, Nicola & Calí, Massimiliano & Todorov, Valentin & Cheng, Charles Fang Chin, 2021. "Switching it up: The effect of energy price reforms in Oman," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    10. Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin & Arvanitis, Spyros & Peneder, Michael & Rammer, Christian, 2018. "How different policy instruments affect green product innovation: A differentiated perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 245-261.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Saidi Magaly Flores Sánchez & Miguel Alejandro Flores Segovia & Luis Carlos Rodríguez López, 2020. "Impact of Public Policies on the Technological Innovation in the Renewable Energy Sector," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(2), pages 139-159.

    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. 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.
    2. David Tobón Orozco & Carlos Andrés Vasco Correa, 2011. "Un modelo de equilibrio general con externalidades y capital natural," Libros del Grupo Microeconomía Aplicada, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, edition 1, number 01.
    3. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & Xiral López Otero, 2014. "A Panorama on Energy Taxes and Green Tax Reforms," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 145-190, March.
    4. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
    5. Baris Ata & Deishin Lee & Mustafa H. Tongarlak, 2012. "Optimizing Organic Waste to Energy Operations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 231-244, April.
    6. Stef Proost & Denise Van Regemorter, 2004. "Climate Change Policy in European Countries and its effects on industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 453-473, October.
    7. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    8. Ossama Mikhail & J. Walter Milon & Richard Hofler, 2005. "Is Investment in Environmental Quality a Solution to Recessions? Studying the Welfare Effects of Green Animal Spirits," Others 0510010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Scott Farrow, 2011. "Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit‐Cost Analysis Using Risk‐Based Preferences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 902-907, June.
    10. Nijiraini, Georgina & Thiam, Djiby, 2015. "Estimating transaction costs associated with water policy implementation in South Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212585, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Demirel, Pelin & Kesidou, Effie, 2011. "Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1546-1557, June.
    12. Xu, Wenli & Xu, Kun & Lu, Hongyou, 2016. "Environmental Policy and China’s Macroeconomic Dynamics Under Uncertainty---Based on The NK Model with Distortionary Taxation," MPRA Paper 71314, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    14. Cristina E. Ciocirlan, 2008. "Analysing preferences towards economic incentives in combating climate change: a comparative analysis of US states," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(6), pages 548-568, November.
    15. Don Fullerton, 2009. "Does Environmental Protection Hurt Low-Income Families?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(1), pages 45-49, April.
    16. Don Fullerton, 2009. "Does Environmental Protection Hurt Low-Income Families?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(01), pages 45-49, April.
    17. Baomin Dong & Jiong Gong & Xin Zhao, 2012. "FDI and environmental regulation: pollution haven or a race to the top?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 216-237, April.
    18. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    19. repec:kap:iaecre:v:7:y:2001:i:3:p:310-326 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    21. Yu-Bong Lai, 2004. "Trade liberalization, consumption externalities and the environment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 17(5), pages 1-9.

    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 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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.