Some micro-evidence on the "Porter Hypothesis" from Austrian VOC emission standards
In the context of the discussion on the 'Porter Hypothesis', a sizeable amount of research has been devoted to empirical tests of the impact of environmental regulation on both competitiveness and innovation. The standard practice is to regress some measure of regulatory stringency on some measure of competitiveness and innovation across several industries and/or countries. However, possibly due to measurement problems, the results of these studies tend to be inconclusive and if any effects are found, these are usually rather small. Addressing the measurement problem, this paper uses highly disaggregated foreign trade data and data from a full survey of the Austrian paint, coatings, printing inks and adhesive industry to examine the impact of Austrian VOC emission standards on Austrian manufacturers of the regulated products. These standards are particularly interesting in that they are the most restrictive of their kind in the world and therefore an excellent case to study some of the issues raised by the 'Porter Hypothesis'. Based on various measures of RCA, I find no impact (i.e. neither negative nor positive) on competitiveness, which is also supported by the industry's own evaluation in the survey. I do find, however, that the regulations restricted imports. An important corollary of this finding is that the industry's current attempt to have the more restrictive Austrian regulation relaxed to the more lenient provisions of the European VOC directive may be counterproductive, since contrary to popular belief this may increase import competition rather than facilitate exports. Second, I consider various indicators of innovation based on evidence from the survey. I find that the regulation induced sizeable changes of firms' product range which vary by technological sub-segment. These changes are also reflected in a more dynamic technological environment. R&D spending to develop compliant products is found to be very unevenly distributed. While some firms spent virtually nothing, other firms devoted almost their complete R&D budget to compliance innovations. This result is mainly a function of technology and to a lesser extent of organisational factors. Moreover, there is evidence that the introduction of compliant products displaced or postponed existing R&D projects, again with substantial variations by technology. Finally, the survey produces evidence that compliance efforts yielded new ideas and allowed some firms to acquire new competencies and technologies, which they would not have acquired in the absence of the regulation. However, the latter finding is most probably due to technologically backward (small) firms catching up. To summarise, the survey evidence reveals considerable heterogeneity in how firms were affected and responded to the regulation. Partly, this is an expected result of a uniform command-and-control regulation, partly it indicates a differential ability of firms to adapt to an external shock. Although based on a very small sample, the paper points to interesting lines of enquiry that should be explored in future research.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria|
Web page: http://www.ersa.org
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.:
- Arik Levinson, 2001.
"An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs,"
in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 131-158
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Arik Levinson, 1999. "An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs," Working Papers gueconwpa~00-00-08, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Arik Levinson, 1999. "An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs," NBER Working Papers 7297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- William Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Wilson, 2000.
"Reexamining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve,"
gueconwpa~00-00-07, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- William T. Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Molloy Wilson, 2002. "Reexamining The Empirical Evidence For An Environmental Kuznets Curve," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 541-551, August.
- William Harbaugh & Arik Levinson & David Wilson, 2000. "Reexamining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve," NBER Working Papers 7711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1999.
"Environmental policy and competitiveness : The Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital,"
Other publications TiSEM
cfb3ecf9-1a3c-4325-ac1d-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- 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.
- Xepapadeas, A. & de Zeeuw, A.J., 1998. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness : The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Discussion Paper 1998-38, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Carlo Carraro & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2000.
"Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy: Introduction,"
Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University
0011, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
- Carlo Carraro & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2000. "Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy Introduction," NBER Working Papers 7648, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 2007. "Environmental Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier.
- 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.
- 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.
- Abay Mulatu & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Cees A.A.M. Withagen, 2001. "Environmental Regulation and Competitiveness," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-039/3, Tinbergen Institute.
- Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1996.
"Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study,"
NBER Working Papers
5545, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- 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.
- Xinpeng Xu, 2000. "International Trade and Environmental Regulation: Time Series Evidence and Cross Section Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 233-257, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa02p290. 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: (Gunther Maier)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.