IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eiq/eileqs/158.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental regulation and productivity growth: main policy challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Roberta De Santis
  • Piero Esposito
  • Cecilia Jona-Lasinio

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the environmental regulation-productivity nexus for 14 OECD countries over the years 1990-2015 and discuss its main policy challenges. Our findings support the hypothesis that environmental policies generate positive productivity returns through innovation as suggested by Porter and Van Der Linde (1995). We find that environmental policies have a productivity growth-promoting effect. Both market and non-marked based policies exert a positive but differentiated impact on labour and multifactor productivity growth. Environmental policy measures generate also potentially mixed redistributive impacts. As for specific polices, green taxes display the largest effect on multifactor productivity although with potentially negative redistributive impact. We also find that environmental regulation exerts indirect positive effect on productivity growth fostering capital accumulation especially in high ICT intensive countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberta De Santis & Piero Esposito & Cecilia Jona-Lasinio, 2020. "Environmental regulation and productivity growth: main policy challenges," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 158, European Institute, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:eiq:eileqs:158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/european-institute/Assets/Documents/LEQS-Discussion-Papers/LEQSPaper158.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2009. "Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis," Umeå Economic Studies 766, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    2. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2009. "Environmental policy without costs? A review of the Porter hypothesis," Sustainable Investment and Corporate Governance Working Papers 2009/1, Sustainable Investment Research Platform.
    3. Kapetanios, G. & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Yamagata, T., 2011. "Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 326-348, February.
    4. Tomasz Kozluk & Vera Zipperer, 2014. "Environmental policies and productivity growth: a critical review of empirical findings," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2014(1), pages 155-185.
    5. Akshaya Jha & Peter H. Matthews & Nicholas Z. Muller, 2019. "Does Environmental Policy Affect Income Inequality? Evidence from the Clean Air Act," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 109, pages 271-276, May.
    6. Fischer, Carolyn & Parry, Ian W. H. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 523-545, May.
    7. Silvia Albrizio & Tomasz Koźluk & Vera Zipperer, 2014. "Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Environmental Policy Stringency on Productivity Growth," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1179, OECD Publishing.
    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. Chiara Franco & Giovanni Marin, 2017. "The Effect of Within-Sector, Upstream and Downstream Environmental Taxes on Innovation and Productivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(2), pages 261-291, February.
    10. Brannlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2009. "Environmental Policy Without Costs? A Review of the Porter Hypothesis," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(2), pages 75-117, September.
    11. Yang, Chih-Hai & Tseng, Yu-Hsuan & Chen, Chiang-Ping, 2012. "Environmental regulations, induced R&D, and productivity: Evidence from Taiwan's manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 514-532.
    12. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Innes, Robert, 2010. "Environmental innovation and environmental performance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 27-42, January.
    13. 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.
    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. Vincenzo Spiezia, 2012. "ICT investments and productivity: Measuring the contribution of ICTS to growth," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2012(1), pages 199-211.
    16. Frederick Solt, 2016. "The Standardized World Income Inequality Database," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1267-1281, 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. Nina Lopez Uroz, 2020. "Populism Amidst Prosperity: Poland's Growth Model and its Socio-Political Outcomes," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 159, European Institute, LSE.

    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. 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.
    2. Xie, Rong-hui & Yuan, Yi-jun & Huang, Jing-jing, 2017. "Different Types of Environmental Regulations and Heterogeneous Influence on “Green” Productivity: Evidence from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 104-112.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Franco, Chiara & Marin, Giovanni, 2013. "The Effect of Within-Sector, Upstream and Downstream Energy Taxes on Innovation and Productivity," Energy: Resources and Markets 162419, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Tommy Lundgren & Per-Olov Marklund, 2015. "Climate policy, environmental performance, and profits," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 225-235, December.
    8. Yang, Chih-Hai & Tseng, Yu-Hsuan & Chen, Chiang-Ping, 2012. "Environmental regulations, induced R&D, and productivity: Evidence from Taiwan's manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 514-532.
    9. R. De Santis & C. Jona Lasinio, 2016. "Environmental Policies, Innovation and Productivity in the EU," Global Economy Journal (GEJ), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 615-635, December.
    10. Wang, Yan & Shen, Neng, 2016. "Environmental regulation and environmental productivity: The case of China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 758-766.
    11. Söderholm, Kristina & Söderholm, Patrik & Helenius, Heidi & Pettersson, Maria & Viklund, Roine & Masloboev, Vladimir & Mingaleva, Tatiana & Petrov, Viktor, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness in the mining industry: Permitting processes with special focus on Finland, Sweden and Russia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 130-142.
    12. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson C.D. Silva, 2017. "Asymmetric Innovation Agreements under Environmental Regulation," CESifo Working Paper Series 6782, CESifo.
    13. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & George Diagourtas & Kostas Kounetas, 2017. "Do pollution abatement expenditures lead to higher productivity growth? Evidence from Greek manufacturing industries," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 15-34, January.
    14. Chiara Franco & Giovanni Marin, 2017. "The Effect of Within-Sector, Upstream and Downstream Environmental Taxes on Innovation and Productivity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(2), pages 261-291, February.
    15. Valadkhani, Abbas & Roshdi, Israfil & Smyth, Russell, 2016. "A multiplicative environmental DEA approach to measure efficiency changes in the world's major polluters," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 363-375.
    16. Andries, Petra & Daou, Alain & Verheyden, Laura, 2019. "Innovation as a vehicle for improving socially vulnerable groups’ access to basic provisions: A research note on the development of a questionnaire module," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 281-288.
    17. Shreekant Gupta & Bishwanath Goldar & Shubham Dang, 2019. "Environmental Performance And Capital Markets--Evidence From India," Working papers 303, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Nicolò Barbieri & Claudia Ghisetti & Marianna Gilli & Giovanni Marin & Francesco Nicolli, 2016. "A Survey Of The Literature On Environmental Innovation Based On Main Path Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 596-623, July.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental regulation; productivity; innovation; Porter hypothesis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:eiq:eileqs:158. 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: (Katjana Gattermann). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eilseuk.html .

    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.