IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/99305.html

Effects of competition forms and market structure on green innovation incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Iwata, Hiroki

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effects of environmental policy on green innovation. We compare the incentives for green innovation in both the Cournot and Bertrand competition. It is shown that positive incentives for green innovation exist in both competition models. When environmental regulations are imposed, the effects of the probability of success on green innovation incentives differ between the Bertrand and Cournot competition. Additionally, we clarify the conditions necessary for the establishment of the Porter hypothesis in both competition models.

Suggested Citation

  • Iwata, Hiroki, 2020. "Effects of competition forms and market structure on green innovation incentives," MPRA Paper 99305, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:99305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99305/1/MPRA_paper_99305.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jindec:v:50:y:2002:i:3:p:265-87 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Permits, Standards, and Technology Innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 23-44, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Jing Cao & Larry D. Qiu & Mohan Zhou, 2016. "Who invests more in advanced abatement technology? Theory and evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 637-662, May.
    5. D’Amato, Alessio & Dijkstra, Bouwe R., 2015. "Technology choice and environmental regulation under asymmetric information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 224-247.
    6. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Market Structure and Environmental Innovation," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 5(2), pages 1-33, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    9. 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.
    10. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    11. Lambertini, Luca & Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2017. "Cournot competition and “green” innovation: An inverted-U relationship," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 116-123.
    12. Requate, Till, 1998. "Incentives to innovate under emission taxes and tradeable permits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 139-165, February.
    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. 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.
    16. Greaker, Mads & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 246-259, November.
    17. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, 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. Liu, Jie & Zhang, Chuan & Chen, Hanwen, 2025. "Customer risk disclosure and supplier innovation strategy: A risk spillover perspective," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    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. Kurtyka, Oliwia & Mabrouk, Rania, 2025. "Does adoption always follow innovation?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Lee, Jaegul & Veloso, Francisco M. & Hounshell, David A., 2011. "Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1240-1252.
    5. Naoto Aoyama & Emilson Caputo Delfino Silva, 2022. "Endogenous Abatement Technology Agreements under Environmental Regulation," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-30, April.
    6. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Optimal emission taxation and the Porter hypothesis under Bertrand competition," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 755-765, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    9. Karp, Larry S., "undated". "Correct (and misleading) arguments for using market based pollution control policies," CUDARE Working Papers 42868, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. André, F.J. & Ranocchia, C. & Rubio, S.J., 2025. "Porter Hypothesis vs. Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can an environmental policy generate a win–win solution?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    11. Luca Lambertini & Giuseppe Pignataro & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "Competition among coalitions in a cournot industry: a validation of the porter hypothesis," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 679-713, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Frondel, Manuel & Horbach, Jens & Rennings, Klaus, 2008. "What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 153-160, May.
    14. Grischa Perino, 2010. "Technology Diffusion with Market Power in the Upstream Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 403-428, August.
    15. Manuel Frondel & Jens Horbach & Klaus Rennings, 2004. "What Triggers Environmental Management and Innovation? – Empirical Evidence for Germany," RWI Discussion Papers 0015, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    16. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. He, Wenjian & Cheng, Yu & Lin, Ying & Zhang, Hongxiao, 2022. "Microeconomic effects of designating National Forest Cities: Evidence from China's publicly traded manufacturing companies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    18. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Anuj J. Mathew, 2009. "Liberalizing Trade in Environmental Goods," Faculty Working Papers 16/09, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
    19. 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.
    20. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2012. "Investment Incentives Under Emission Trading: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 229-249, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    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:pra:mprapa:99305. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.