IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/ces/ifofob/30.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Economic impacts of environmental regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Tilmann Rave
  • Ursula Triebswetter

Abstract

This study was commissioned by the German Environmental Protection Agency and also informs the project "New techniques for integrated, cross-media environmental protection" of the German ministry of education and research. The background of the study is the Directive 96/61/EG on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC-Directive) which serves as an important instrument of the European Union to gradually harmonise permitting procedures and conditions of large industrial installations in the Member States. The Directive aims to consider impacts of industrial plants on the environment as a whole and across environmental media, like air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination, generation of waste, resource use, noise and implications on energy efficiency and risk management. Emission limits defined in the permits are supposed to be based on "Best Available Techniques" (BAT). Integrated permitting is not only expected to lead to environmental improvements, but will also have economic impacts. This includes a cost burden for some of the companies directly affected by IPPC requirements, but may also include wider economic effects on the meso or even the macro level, e.g. via the stimulation of demand, innovation incentives or implications on competitiveness. The study has to be seen as a feasibility study and focuses primarily on conceptual and methodological issues without undertaking any calculations or other direct impact assessments. It aims to give recommendations on the design of potential future studies (in particular with regard to the above mentioned "wider effects"). The results demonstrate that the quantification of the numerous possible economic effects poses a great challenge for empirical research. Yet, a number of established and new economic methods may be used for this purpose (e.g. extended input-output-models, micro- and spatial-econometric methods, micro-simulation models). A gradual, co-ordinated, modular and multi-annual study design is suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ifofob:30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/ifo_Forschungsberichte_30.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanessa Oltra & Maider Saint Jean, 2005. "The dynamics of environmental innovations: three stylised trajectories of clean technology," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 189-212.
    2. Merz, Joachim, 1994. "Microsimulation - A Survey of Methods and Applications for Analyzing Economic and Social Policy," MPRA Paper 7232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Werker, C. & Brenner, T., 2004. "Empirical calibration of simulation models," Working Papers 04.13, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    4. Lori D. Snyder & Nolan H. Miller & Robert N. Stavins, 2003. "The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Technology Diffusion: The Case of Chlorine Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 431-435, May.
    5. Frondel, Manuel & Horbach, Jens & Rennings, Klaus & Requate, Till, 2004. "Environmental Policy Tools and Firm-Level Management Practices: Empirical Evidence for Germany," Economics Working Papers 2004-02, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    6. Anders Klevmarken, 2022. "Microsimulation. A Tool for Economic Analysis," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 15(1), pages 6-14.
    7. Suzi Kerr & Richard G. Newell, 2003. "Policy‐Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-343, September.
    8. Gray, Wayne B. & Shadbegian, Ronald J., 2003. "Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 384-402, November.
    9. Widmaier, Ulrich & Niggemann, Hiltrud & Merz, Joachim, 1994. "What makes the Difference between Unsuccessful and Successful Firms in the German Mechanical Engineering Industry?," MPRA Paper 7230, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Filippo Oropallo, 2004. "Enterprise Microsimulation Models And Data Challenges," Public Economics 0409005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. P. Windrum, 2007. "Neo-Schumpeterian Simulation Models," Chapters, in: Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Feichtinger, G. & Hartl, R.F. & Kort, P.M. & Veliov, V., 2005. "Environmental policy, the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital : Effects of learning and technological progress," Other publications TiSEM d50730bb-82e1-47a0-9836-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. 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.
    15. Lutz, Christian & Meyer, Bernd & Nathani, Carsten & Schleich, Joachim, 2005. "Endogenous technological change and emissions: the case of the German steel industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1143-1154, June.
    16. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    17. Thomas Roediger‐Schluga, 2003. "Some Micro‐Evidence on the “Porter Hypothesis” from Austrian VOC Emission Standards," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 359-379, August.
    18. Francesco Ricci, 2007. "Environmental policy and growth when inputs are differentiated in pollution intensity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 285-310, November.
    19. Richard G. Newell & Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 941-975.
    20. Loschel, Andreas, 2002. "Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 105-126, December.
    21. Jenkins, Rhys, 1998. "Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness: A Review of Literature and Some European Evidence," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 1998-01, United Nations University - INTECH.
    22. 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.
    23. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh & Marco A. Janssen (ed.), 2005. "Economics of Industrial Ecology: Materials, Structural Change, and Spatial Scales," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262220717, December.
    24. Lanjouw, Jean Olson & Mody, Ashoka, 1996. "Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 549-571, June.
    25. Feichtinger, Gustav & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Veliov, Vladimir M., 2005. "Environmental policy, the porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technological progress," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 434-446, September.
    26. 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.
    27. Peichl, Andreas, 2005. "Die Evaluation von Steuerreformen durch Simulationsmodelle," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 05-1, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    28. N. Anders Klevmarken, 1997. "Behavioral Modeling in Micro Simulation Models. A Survey," Working Paper Series 1997:31, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    29. Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1998. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness : The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Other publications TiSEM 574efb6e-556c-43af-b12e-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    30. Tim Jeppesen & John A. List & Henk Folmer, 2002. "Environmental Regulations and New Plant Location Decisions: Evidence from a Meta‐Analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 19-49, February.
    31. Leo van Wissen, 2000. "A micro-simulation model of firms: Applications of concepts of the demography of the firm," Papers in Regional Science, Springer;Regional Science Association International, vol. 79(2), pages 111-134.
    32. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    33. Thomas Roediger-Schluga, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis and the Economic Consequences of Environmental Regulation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3300.
    34. David Popp, 2004. "International Innovation and Diffusion of Air Pollution Control Technologies: The Effects of NOX and SO2 Regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany," NBER Working Papers 10643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    5. Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "Productivity and environmental regulations - A long run analysis of the Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 728, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. de Vries, F.P. & Withagen, C.A.A.M., 2005. "Innovation and environmental stringency : The case of sulfur dioxide abatement," Other publications TiSEM 9f3f79ab-2646-4f72-845c-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. 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.
    10. Dominique Bianco, 2022. "Does entrepreneurial behaviour matter for the strong Porter hypothesis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(2), pages 867-876.
    11. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Post-Print hal-02177939, HAL.
    13. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    14. Roediger-Schluge, Thomas, 2001. "The Stringency of Environmental Regulation and the 'Porter Hypothesis'," Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Carraro, Carlo & De Cian, Enrica & Nicita, Lea & Massetti, Emanuele & Verdolini, Elena, 2010. "Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 4(2), pages 163-219, October.
    20. Chen, Shiyi & Härdle, Wolfgang Karl, 2012. "Dynamic activity analysis model based win-win development forecasting under the environmental regulation in China," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2012-002, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    21. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    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:ces:ifofob:30. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifooode.html .

    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.