IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa02p290.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Some micro-evidence on the "Porter Hypothesis" from Austrian VOC emission standards

Author

Listed:
  • Roediger-Schluga, Thomas

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Roediger-Schluga, Thomas, 2002. "Some micro-evidence on the "Porter Hypothesis" from Austrian VOC emission standards," ERSA conference papers ersa02p290, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa02p290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa02/cd-rom/papers/290.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arik Levinson, 2001. "An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs," NBER Chapters, in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 131-158, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Xinpeng Xu, 2000. "International Trade and Environmental Regulation: Time Series Evidence and Cross Section Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 233-257, November.
    6. Tom Tietenberg & Henk Folmer (ed.), 1998. "The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1998/1999," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1498.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Carlo Carraro & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2001. "Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number carr01-1, January.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Fritz Breuss, 2000. "An Evaluation of the Economic Effects of Austria's EU Membership," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 5(4), pages 171-196, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 2007. "Environmental Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 499-589, Elsevier.
    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. Rubashkina, Yana & Galeotti, Marzio & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 288-300.
    2. John P. Weche, 2015. "Does green corporate investment really crowd out other business investment?," Working Paper Series in Economics 350, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    3. Kneller, Richard & Manderson, Edward, 2012. "Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 211-235.
    4. 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.
    5. Hanna Hottenrott & Sascha Rexh�user, 2015. "Policy-Induced Environmental Technology and Inventive Efforts: Is There a Crowding Out?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 375-401, July.
    6. Yantao Gao & Xilong Yao & Wenxi Wang & Xin Liu, 2019. "Dynamic effect of environmental tax on export trade: Based on DSGE mode," Energy & Environment, , vol. 30(7), pages 1275-1290, November.
    7. 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.
    8. René Kemp & Luc Soete & Rifka Weehuizen, 2012. "Towards an Effective Eco-Innovation Policy in a Globalised Setting," Chapters, in: Frank Wijen & Kees Zoeteman & Jan Pieters & Paul van Seters (ed.), A Handbook of Globalisation and Environmental Policy, Second Edition, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30, June.
    10. David Popp & Richard G. Newell, 2009. "Where Does Energy R&D Come From? Examining Crowding Out from Environmentally-Friendly R&D," NBER Working Papers 15423, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Inglesi-Lotz, R., 2019. "Energy research and R&D indicators: An LMDI decomposition analysis for the IEA Big 5 in energy research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Popp, David & Newell, Richard, 2012. "Where does energy R&D come from? Examining crowding out from energy R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 980-991.

    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. Roediger-Schluge, Thomas, 2001. "The Stringency of Environmental Regulation and the 'Porter Hypothesis'," Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco, 2008. "Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 447-460, June.
    3. Becker, Randy A., 2005. "Air pollution abatement costs under the Clean Air Act: evidence from the PACE survey," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 144-169, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Thomas Ziesemer & Peter Michaelis, 2008. "Strategic Environmental Policy and the Accumulation of Knowledge," Discussion Paper Series 301, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    6. Francesco Vona & Francesco Nicolli & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of renewable energy innovation: environmental policies vs. market regulation," Sciences Po publications 2012-05, Sciences Po.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. de Vries, F.P. & Withagen, C.A.A.M., 2005. "Innovation and environmental stringency : The case of sulfur dioxide abatement," Other publications TiSEM 9f3f79ab-2646-4f72-845c-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Brännlund, Runar & Lundgren, Tommy, 2008. "Environmental policy and profitability - Evidence from Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 750, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    14. Timothy Swanson & Zacharias Ziegelhoefer, 2011. "Economic Frameworks for thinking about Growth, Sustainability and the role of State Intervention: Paths to Green Economies?," CIES Research Paper series 11-2012, Centre for International Environmental Studies, The Graduate Institute.
    15. Brännlund, Runar, 2008. "Productivity and environmental regulations - A long run analysis of the Swedish industry," Umeå Economic Studies 728, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    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. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    18. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Everett, Tim & Ishwaran, Mallika & Ansaloni, Gian Paolo & Rubin, Alex, 2010. "Economic growth and the environment," MPRA Paper 23585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    21. Caroline Orset, 2014. "Innovation and the precautionary principle," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 780-801, November.
    22. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Bengochea-Morancho, Aurelia & Morales-Lage, Rafael, 2019. "Does environmental policy stringency foster innovation and productivity in OECD countries?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    More about this item

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa02p290. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.