Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:37:43.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of environmental policies on productivity and market competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2014

Javad Sadeghzadeh
Javad Sadeghzadeh*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, York University, Room 1144, Vari Hall, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, M3J 1P3, Ontario, Canada. Tel: (416) 736 2100. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While a large body of the literature on environmental policies has focused on the productivity impacts of regulations, less attention has been given to the link between environmental policies and market competition. In this paper, I develop a tractable model that incorporates variable mark-ups to study how a competitive environment is affected by environmental policies in a market with firm heterogeneity and endogenous abatement technology choice. The findings of this study are consistent with the Porter Hypothesis in the sense that environmental regulations motivate abatement technology adoption and enhance productivity and environmental quality. However, the productivity gain is mainly driven by reallocation of resources across firms rather than the induced abatement technological change. Tougher regulations harm the competitive environment by increasing average prices and market concentration. Social welfare also drops because in the absence of strong competition fewer variates are produced in equilibrium.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 548 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., and Howitt, P. (2005), ‘Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(2): 701–728.Google Scholar
Alpay, E., Kerkvliet, J., and Buccola, S. (2002), ‘Productivity growth and environmental regulation in Mexican and US food manufacturing’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(4:) 887–901.Google Scholar
Arkolakis, C., Demidova, S., Klenow, P.J., and Rodríguez-Clare, A. (2008), ‘Endogenous variety and the gains from trade’, NBER Working Paper No. 13933, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bergin, P.R. and Feenstra, R.C. (2001), ‘Pricing to market, staggered contracts, and real exchange rate persistence’, Journal of International Economics 54: 333–359.Google Scholar
Bergin, P.R., Feenstra, R.C., and Gordon, H.H. (2007), ‘Outsourcing and volatility’, NBER Working Paper No. 13144, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Berman, E. and Bui, L.T.M. (2001), ‘Environmental regulation and productivity: evidence from oil refineries’, Review of Economics and Statistics 83(3): 498–510.Google Scholar
Dixit, A.K. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1977), ‘Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity’, American Economic Review 67(3): 297–308.Google Scholar
Helpman, E., Melitz, M.J., and Yeaple, S.R. (2004), ‘Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms’, American Economic Review 94(1): 300–316.Google Scholar
Herrendorf, B. and Bai, Y. (2009), ‘What is the relationship between competition and productivity’, 2009 Meeting Paper No. 1142, Society for Economic Dynamics, St Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Holmes, T.J. and Schmitz, J.A. Jr. (2010), ‘Competition and productivity: a review of evidence’, Staff Report No. 439, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A.B. and Palmer, K. (1997), ‘Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study’, Review of Economics and Statistics 79(4): 610–619.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (1980), ‘Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade’, American Economic Review 70(5): 950–59.Google Scholar
Levinson, A. and Taylor, M.S. (2003), Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Li, B.Z. and Shi, S. (2010), ‘Emission tax or standard? The role of productivity dispersion’, 2010 Meeting Paper No. 587, Society for Economics Dynamics, St Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. (1993), ‘Unauthorized use of intellectual property: effects on investment, technology transfer, and innovation’, in Wallerstein, M.B., Mogee, M.E. and Schoen, R.A. (eds), Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 107–145.Google Scholar
Melitz, M.J. (2003), ‘The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity’, Econometrica 71(6): 1695–1725.Google Scholar
Melitz, M.J. and Ottaviano, G. (2008), ‘Market size, trade, and productivity’, Review of Economic Studies 75(1): 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottaviano, G., Tabuchi, T., and Thisse, J.-F. (2002), ‘Agglomeration and trade revisited’, International Economic Review 43(2): 409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, K., Oates, W.E., and Portney, P.R. (1995), ‘Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 119–132.Google Scholar
Porter, M.E. (1991), ‘America's green strategy’, Scientific American 264: 4.Google Scholar
Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), ‘Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 97–118.Google Scholar
Xepapadeas, A. and de Zeeuw, A. (1999), ‘Environmental policy and competitiveness: the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37(2): 165–182.Google Scholar
Yokoo, H.-F. (2009), ‘Heterogeneous Firms, the Porter Hypothesis and Trade’, Kyofo: KSI-Communications.Google Scholar