IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies

The pollution haven hypothesis (PHH) affirms that an open market regime will encourage the flow of low-technology polluting industries toward developing countries because of potential comparative advantages related io low environmentai standards. In contrast, the hypothesis suggested by Porter and vari der Linde claims that innovating firms operate in a dynamic competitive situation which allows global diffusion of environmental-friendly technologies. Environmental regulation may represent a relevant mechanism through which technological change is induced. In this way, countries that are subject io more stringent envíronmental regulations may become net exporters of environmental technologies. This paper provides new evidence ori the evolution of export ftows of environmental technologies across different countries for the energy sector. Advanced economies, particularly the European Union, have increasingly focused on the role of energy polîcies as tools for sustaining the development path. The Kyoto Protocol commitments, together with growing import dependence ori energy products, have brought attentìon to the analysis of ìnnovatìon processes in this specific sector. The analysis uses a gravity model in order io test the determinants and the transmission channels through which environmental technologies for renewable energies and energy efficiency are exported to advanced and developing countries. Our results are consistent with the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis where environmental regulation represents a significant source of comparative advantages. What strongly emerges is that the stringency of environmental regulation supplemented by the strength of the National Innovation System is a crucia1 driver of export performance in the field of energy technologíes.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.unito.it/unitoWAR/ShowBinary/FSRepo/D031/Allegati/WP2007Dip_L&B/8_WP_Momigliano.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Turin in its series Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio Carlo Alberto. WP series with number 200708.

as
in new window

Length: 26 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:uto:labeco:200708
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.unito.it/Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Daniele Archibugi & Alberto Coco, 2004. "A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo)," SPRU Working Paper Series 111, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  2. Roghieh Gholami & Sang-Yong Tom Lee & Almas Heshmati, 2010. "The Causal Relationship between Information and Communication Technology and Foreign Direct Investment," Working Papers id:3196, eSocialSciences.
  3. Bovenberg, A.L. & Smulders, J.A., 1993. "Environmental quality and pollution-saving technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model," Discussion Paper 1993-21, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 139-47, March.
  6. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Discussion Papers dp-00-47, Resources For the Future.
  7. Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 2007. "Environmental Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier.
  8. Alan V. Deardorff, 1995. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," NBER Working Papers 5377, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Robert C. Feenstra & James R. Markusen & Andrew K. Rose, 2001. "Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 430-447, May.
  10. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
  11. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 1996. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," International Trade 9608001, EconWPA, revised 13 Jun 1997.
  12. Davis, D.R. & Weinstein, D.E., 1997. "Does Economic Geography Matter for International Specialization?," Working Papers 403, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
  13. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
  14. Ronald Steenblik, 2005. "Liberalisation of Trade in Renewable-Energy Products and Associated Goods: Charcoal, Solar Photovoltaic Systems, and Wind Pumps and Turbines," OECD Trade and Environment Working Papers 2005/7, OECD Publishing.
  15. Bommer, Rolf, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Industrial Competitiveness: The Pollution-Haven Hypothesis Reconsidered," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 342-55, May.
  16. Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2006. "Notes on CEPII’s distances measures," MPRA Paper 26469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  17. Marcus Wagner, 2004. "The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Tests," Public Economics 0407014, EconWPA.
  18. 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.
  19. Brunnermeier, Smita B. & Cohen, Mark A., 2003. "Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 278-293, March.
  20. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 137-154, February.
  21. repec:ner:tilbur:urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-153411 is not listed on IDEAS
  22. William A. Brock & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Economic Growth and the Environment: A Review of Theory and Empirics," NBER Working Papers 10854, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. David Hummels & James Levinsohn, 1993. "Monopolistic Competition and International Trade: Reconsidering the Evidence," NBER Working Papers 4389, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Wheeler, David, 2001. "Racing to the bottom : foreign investment and air pollution in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2524, The World Bank.
  25. Arik Levinson, 2006. "Unmasking the Pollution Haven Effect," Working Papers 2008-02, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 01 Jan 2008.
  26. Josh Ederington, Arik Levinson & Jenny Minier, 2003. "Footlose and Pollution Free," Working Papers gueconwpa~03-03-04, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
  27. Lucas Bretschger, 2003. "Economics of technological change and the natural environment: how effective are innovations as a remedy for resource scarcity?," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 03/27, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich, revised Jun 2004.
  28. Letchumanan, Raman & Kodama, Fumio, 2000. "Reconciling the conflict between the 'pollution-haven' hypothesis and an emerging trajectory of international technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, January.
  29. Bovenberg, A.L. & Smulders, J.A., 1995. "Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model," Other publications TiSEM 6784bb12-71fb-45a5-bf7e-8, School of Economics and Management.
  30. Richard G. Newell & Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," NBER Working Papers 6437, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. 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.
  32. J. Neary, 2006. "International Trade and the Environment: Theoretical and Policy Linkages," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 95-118, 01.
  33. Altman, Morris, 2001. "When green isn't mean: economic theory and the heuristics of the impact of environmental regulations on competitiveness and opportunity cost," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 31-44, January.
  34. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
  35. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996. "Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study," NBER Working Papers 5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  36. Copeland, Brian R. & Taylor, M. Scott, 2005. "Free trade and global warming: a trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 205-234, March.
  37. de Melo, Jaime & Grether, Jean-Marie, 2003. "Globalization and Dirty Industries: Do Pollution Havens Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3932, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  38. Hoekman, Bernard M. & Maskus, Keith E. & Saggi, Kamal, 2005. "Transfer of technology to developing countries: Unilateral and multilateral policy options," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1587-1602, October.
  39. Dasgupta, Susmita & Hamilton, Kirk & Pandey, Kiran D. & Wheeler, David, 2006. "Environment During growth: Accounting for governance and vulnerability," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1597-1611, September.
  40. Vollebergh, Herman R.J. & Kemfert, Claudia, 2005. "The role of technological change for a sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 133-147, August.
  41. repec:dgr:uvatin:20010039 is not listed on IDEAS
  42. Lanoie, Paul & Laplante, Benoit & Roy, Maite, 1998. "Can capital markets create incentives for pollution control?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 31-41, July.
  43. Popp, David, 2006. "International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 46-71, January.
  44. Cerin, Pontus, 2006. "Bringing economic opportunity into line with environmental influence: A discussion on the Coase theorem and the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 209-225, February.
  45. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
  46. 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.
  47. Wolfgang Keller, 2001. "International Technology Diffusion," NBER Working Papers 8573, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  48. Jerneja Jug & Daniel Mirza, 2005. "Environmental Regulations in Gravity Equations: Evidence from Europe," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(11), pages 1591-1615, November.
  49. Popp, David, 2005. "Lessons from patents: Using patents to measure technological change in environmental models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 209-226, August.
  50. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
  51. 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.
  52. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-16, March.
  53. Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1998. "The Regionalization of the World Economy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number fran98-1, October.
  54. 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.
  55. Jaffe Adam B. & Stavins Robert N., 1995. "Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages S43-S63, November.
  56. Cees van Beers, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2003. "Environmental regulation impacts on international trade: aggregate and sectoral analyses with a bilateral trade flow model," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 14-29.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

  1. Technology Assessment

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uto:labeco:200708. 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: (Piero Cavaleri)

or (Marina Grazioli)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.