IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pab/wpaper/07.03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Quality Competition and the Porter Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco J. André

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Paula González

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Nicolás Porteiro

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

Abstract

In this paper we provide a theoretical foundation for the Porter hypothesis in a context of quality competition. We use a duopoly model of vertical product differentiation where firms simultaneously choose the environmental quality of the good they produce (which can be either high or low) and, afterwards, engage in price competition. In this simple setting, we show that a Nash equilibrium of the game with low quality could be Pareto dominated by another strategy profile in which both firms produce the high environmental quality good. We then show how, in this case, the introduction of a penalty to any firm that produces the low environmental quality can result in an increase in both firms' profits. The impact of the policy on consumers depends on the effect of a quality shift on the cost structure of firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco J. André & Paula González & Nicolás Porteiro, 2007. "Strategic Quality Competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Working Papers 07.03, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:07.03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wps/econ0703.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2007
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dastidar, Krishnendu Ghosh, 1995. "On the Existence of Pure Strategy Bertrand Equilibrium," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(1), pages 19-32, January.
    2. Don Fullerton & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2002. "Environmental Controls, Scarcity Rents, and Pre-existing Distortions," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 26, pages 504-522, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. C. Lombardini-Riipinen, 2005. "Optimal Tax Policy under Environmental Quality Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(3), pages 317-336, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Buchanan, James M & Tullock, Gordon, 1975. "Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls Versus Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 139-147, March.
    7. Crampes, Claude & Hollander, Abraham, 1995. "Duopoly and quality standards," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 71-82, January.
    8. Amacher, Gregory S. & Koskela, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku, 2004. "Environmental quality competition and eco-labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 284-306, March.
    9. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    10. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    11. Popp David, 2005. "Uncertain R&D and the Porter Hypothesis," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Jaskold Gabszewicz, J. & Thisse, J. -F., 1979. "Price competition, quality and income disparities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 340-359, June.
    18. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Maloney, Michael T & McCormick, Robert E, 1982. "A Positive Theory of Environmental Quality Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 99-123, April.
    21. Mari Rege, 2000. "Strategic Policy and Environmental Quality: Helping the Domestic Industry to Provide Credible Information," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(3), pages 279-296, March.
    22. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May.
    23. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    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. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. 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.
    4. Chakraborty, Pavel & Chatterjee, Chirantan, 2017. "Does environmental regulation indirectly induce upstream innovation? New evidence from India," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 939-955.
    5. 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.
    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. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    10. Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "Productivity and environmental regulations - A long run analysis of the Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 728, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    11. Shiyi Chen & Wolfgang Karl Härdle, 2012. "Dynamic Activity Analysis Model Based Win-Win Development Forecasting Under the Environmental Regulation in China," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2012-002, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, 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. Rassier, Dylan G. & Earnhart, Dietrich, 2015. "Effects of environmental regulation on actual and expected profitability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 129-140.
    14. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    15. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/c6vaci757938qr0fmnuq9kd0e is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Bréchet, Thierry & Jouvet, Pierre-André, 2009. "Why environmental management may yield no-regret pollution abatement options," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1770-1777, April.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2012. "Vertical differentiation in a Cournot industry: The Porter hypothesis and beyond," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 374-380.
    20. Fu, Ke & Li, Yanzhi & Mao, Huiqiang & Miao, Zhaowei, 2023. "Firms’ production and green technology strategies: The role of emission asymmetry and carbon taxes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1100-1112.
    21. 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).
    22. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environmental quality; vertical differentiation; prisoner's dilemma; environmental regulation; Porter hypothesis.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • 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

    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:pab:wpaper:07.03. 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: Publicación Digital - UPO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deupoes.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.