IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae17/260833.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact Of Pollution Abatement Investments On Production Technology: New Insights From Frontier Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Simioni, Michel
  • Huiban, Jean Pierre
  • Mastromarco, Camilla
  • Musolesi, Antonio

Abstract

This paper estimates the impact of pollution abatement investments on the production technology of firms by pursuing two new directions. First, we take advantage of recent econometric developments in productivity and eciency analysis and compare the results obtained with two complementary approaches: parametric stochastic frontier analysis and conditional nonparametric frontier analysis. Second, we focus not only on the average eect but also on its heterogeneity across rms and over time and search for potential nonlinearities. We provide new results suggesting that such an eect is heterogeneous both within rms and over time and indicating that the eect of pollution abatement investments on the production process is not monotonic. These results have relevant implications both for modeling and for the purposes of advice on environmentally friendly policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Simioni, Michel & Huiban, Jean Pierre & Mastromarco, Camilla & Musolesi, Antonio, 2017. "The Impact Of Pollution Abatement Investments On Production Technology: New Insights From Frontier Analysis," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260833, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae17:260833
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.260833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/260833/files/The%20Impact%20Of%20Pollution%20Abatement%20Investments%20On%20Production%20Technology%3A%20New%20Insights%20From%20Frontier%20Analysis.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/260833/files/The%20Impact%20Of%20Pollution%20Abatement%20Investments%20On%20Production%20Technology%3A%20New%20Insights%20From%20Frontier%20Analysis.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.260833?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Peter Hall & Jeff Racine & Qi Li, 2004. "Cross-Validation and the Estimation of Conditional Probability Densities," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 1015-1026, December.
    4. Bădin, Luiza & Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Léopold, 2012. "How to measure the impact of environmental factors in a nonparametric production model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(3), pages 818-833.
    5. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    6. Peter Hall & Qi Li & Jeffrey S. Racine, 2007. "Nonparametric Estimation of Regression Functions in the Presence of Irrelevant Regressors," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 784-789, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    9. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (II): Applications of the Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 2, number fuss1978a.
    10. Camilla Mastromarco & Léopold Simar, 2015. "Effect of FDI and Time on Catching Up: New Insights from a Conditional Nonparametric Frontier Analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 826-847, August.
    11. Shadbegian, Ronald J. & Gray, Wayne B., 2005. "Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: A production function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 196-208, August.
    12. 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.
    13. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. 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.
    15. Badin, Luiza & Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Léopold, 2010. "Optimal bandwidth selection for conditional efficiency measures: A data-driven approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 633-640, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.), 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780444850133.
    20. Cinzia Daraio & Léopold Simar, 2005. "Introducing Environmental Variables in Nonparametric Frontier Models: a Probabilistic Approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 93-121, September.
    21. Guilkey, David K & Lovell, C A Knox & Sickles, Robin C, 1983. "A Comparison of the Performance of Three Flexible Functional Forms," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 24(3), pages 591-616, October.
    22. H. Fried & C. Lovell & S. Schmidt & S. Yaisawarng, 2002. "Accounting for Environmental Effects and Statistical Noise in Data Envelopment Analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 157-174, January.
    23. Qi Li & Jeffrey Scott Racine, 2006. "Nonparametric Econometrics: Theory and Practice," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 8355.
    24. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel & Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "A Survey of Functional Forms in the Economic Analysis of Production," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.),Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, volume 1, chapter 4, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    25. Hall, Peter G. & Racine, Jeffrey S., 2015. "Infinite order cross-validated local polynomial regression," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(2), pages 510-525.
    26. Jondrow, James & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Materov, Ivan S. & Schmidt, Peter, 1982. "On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 233-238, August.
    27. Chambers,Robert G., 1988. "Applied Production Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521314275, June.
    28. Tim Coelli & Sergio Perelman & Elliot Romano, 1999. "Accounting for Environmental Influences in Stochastic Frontier Models: With Application to International Airlines," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 251-273, June.
    29. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (I): The Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 1, number fuss1978.
    30. Daouia, Abdelaati & Simar, Leopold, 2007. "Nonparametric efficiency analysis: A multivariate conditional quantile approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 375-400, October.
    31. Deborah Aiken & Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf & Carl Pasurka, 2009. "Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 11-28, September.
    32. Cazals, Catherine & Florens, Jean-Pierre & Simar, Leopold, 2002. "Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-25, January.
    33. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    34. Greene, William, 2005. "Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 269-303, June.
    35. George E. Battese, 1997. "A Note On The Estimation Of Cobb‐Douglas Production Functions When Some Explanatory Variables Have Zero Values," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 250-252, January.
    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. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: a nonparametric approach," SEEDS Working Papers 0918, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Sep 2018.
    2. Antonio Musolesi & Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Michel Simioni, 2015. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on technology: Porter hypothesis revisited," Working Papers 2015084, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    3. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "Reconciling the Porter hypothesis with the traditional paradigm about environmental regulation: a nonparametric approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 85-100, December.
    4. Yunguo Lu & Lin Zhang, 2023. "Environmental information disclosure and firm production: evidence from the estimated efficiency of publicly listed firms in China," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 99-119, February.
    5. Nieswand, Maria & Seifert, Stefan, 2018. "Environmental factors in frontier estimation – A Monte Carlo analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 133-148.
    6. Nolwenn Roudaut & Anne Vanhems, 2012. "Explaining firms efficiency in the Ivorian manufacturing sector: a robust nonparametric approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 155-169, April.
    7. Cordero, José Manuel & Pedraja-Chaparro, Francisco & Pisaflores, Elsa C. & Polo, Cristina, 2016. "Efficiency assessment of Portuguese municipalities using a conditional nonparametric approach," MPRA Paper 70674, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. 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.
    9. Cordero Ferrera, Jose Manuel & Alonso Morán, Edurne & Nuño Solís, Roberto & Orueta, Juan F. & Souto Arce, Regina, 2013. "Efficiency assessment of primary care providers: A conditional nonparametric approach," MPRA Paper 51926, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf & Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 442-451.
    11. Gonseth, Camille & Cadot, Olivier & Mathys, Nicole A. & Thalmann, Philippe, 2015. "Energy-tax changes and competitiveness: The role of adaptive capacity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 127-135.
    12. Michael L. Polemis & Thanasis Stengos & Nickolaos G. Tzeremes, 2020. "Modeling the effect of competition on US manufacturing sectors’ efficiency: an order-m frontier analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 27-41, August.
    13. Erik Hille & Patrick Möbius, 2019. "Environmental Policy, Innovation, and Productivity Growth: Controlling the Effects of Regulation and Endogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1315-1355, August.
    14. López-Torres, Laura & Johnes, Jill & Elliott, Caroline & Polo, Cristina, 2021. "The effects of competition and collaboration on efficiency in the UK independent school sector," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 40-53.
    15. Julián Ramajo & José Manuel Cordero & Miguel Ángel Márquez, 2017. "European regional efficiency and geographical externalities: a spatial nonparametric frontier analysis," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 319-348, October.
    16. Maria Nieswand & Stefan Seifert, 2016. "Operational Conditions in Regulatory Benchmarking Models: A Monte Carlo Analysis," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1585, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Minviel, Jean Joseph & De Witte, Kristof, 2017. "The influence of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency: A robust conditional nonparametric approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1112-1120.
    18. 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.
    19. Massimiliano Agovino & Mariaconcetta Casaccia & Alessandro Crociata, 2017. "Effectiveness and efficiency of European Regional Development Fund on separate waste collection: evidence from Italian regions by a stochastic frontier approach," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 34(1), pages 105-137, April.
    20. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:eaae17:260833. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.