The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness
01 Jul 2017-Review of Environmental Economics and Policy (The University of Chicago Press)-Vol. 11, Iss: 2, pp 183-206
TL;DR: In this article, the authors review the empirical literature on the impacts of environmental regulations on firms' competitiveness as measured by trade, industry location, employment, productivity, and in-state productivity.
Abstract: This article reviews the empirical literature on the impacts of environmental regulations on firms’ competitiveness as measured by trade, industry location, employment, productivity, and in...
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Biodiversity-based techniques can be used to manage most human-modified lands as “working landscapes” and ensure that the production of food, fiber, fuel, and timber can be sustained over the long run and be more resilient to extreme events.
Abstract: How can we manage farmlands, forests, and rangelands to respond to the triple challenge of the Anthropocene-biodiversity loss, climate change, and unsustainable land use? When managed by using biodiversity-based techniques such as agroforestry, silvopasture, diversified farming, and ecosystem-based forest management, these socioeconomic systems can help maintain biodiversity and provide habitat connectivity, thereby complementing protected areas and providing greater resilience to climate change. Simultaneously, the use of these management techniques can improve yields and profitability more sustainably, enhancing livelihoods and food security. This approach to "working lands conservation" can create landscapes that work for nature and people. However, many socioeconomic challenges impede the uptake of biodiversity-based land management practices. Although improving voluntary incentives, market instruments, environmental regulations, and governance is essential to support working lands conservation, it is community action, social movements, and broad coalitions among citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies that have the power to transform how we manage land and protect the environment.
575 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a large-scale assessment of the relevant energy literature was conducted to better understand energy-related interactions between SDGs, as well as their context-dependencies (relating to time, geography, governance, technology, and directionality).
Abstract: The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide guide-posts to society as it attempts to respond to an array of pressing challenges One of these challenges is energy; thus, the SDGs have become paramount for energy policy-making Yet, while governments throughout the world have already declared the SDGs to be 'integrated and indivisible', there are still knowledge gaps surrounding how the interactions between the energy SDG targets and those of the non-energy-focused SDGs might play out in different contexts In this review, we report on a large-scale assessment of the relevant energy literature, which we conducted to better our understanding of key energy-related interactions between SDGs, as well as their context-dependencies (relating to time, geography, governance, technology, and directionality) By (i) evaluating the nature and strength of the interactions identified, (ii) indicating the robustness of the evidence base, the agreement of that evidence, and our confidence in it, and (iii) highlighting critical areas where better understanding is needed or context dependencies should be considered, our review points to potential ways forward for both the policy making and scientific communities First, we find that positive interactions between the SDGs outweigh the negative ones, both in number and magnitude Second, of relevance for the scientific community, in order to fill knowledge gaps in critical areas, there is an urgent need for interdisciplinary research geared toward developing new data, scientific tools, and fresh perspectives Third, of relevance for policy-making, wider efforts to promote policy coherence and integrated assessments are required to address potential policy spillovers across sectors, sustainability domains, and geographic and temporal boundaries The task of conducting comprehensive science-to-policy assessments covering all SDGs, such as for the UN's Global Sustainable Development Report, remains manageable pending the availability of systematic reviews focusing on a limited number of SDG dimensions in each case
270 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the main arguments for carbon pricing are presented to stimulate a fair and well-informed discussion about it, and the discussion goes beyond traditional arguments from environmental economics by including relevant insights from energy research and innovation studies as well.
Abstract: Carbon pricing is a recurrent theme in debates on climate policy. Discarded at the 2009 COP in Copenhagen, it remained part of deliberations for a climate agreement in subsequent years. As there is still much misunderstanding about the many reasons to implement a global carbon price, ideological resistance against it prospers. Here, we present the main arguments for carbon pricing, to stimulate a fair and well‐informed discussion about it. These include considerations that have received little attention so far. We stress that a main reason to use carbon pricing is environmental effectiveness at a relatively low cost, which in turn contributes to enhance social and political acceptability of climate policy. This includes the property that corrected prices stimulate rapid environmental innovations. These arguments are underappreciated in the public debate, where pricing is frequently downplayed and the erroneous view that innovation policies are sufficient is widespread. Carbon pricing and technology policies are, though, largely complementary and thus are both needed for effective climate policy. We also comment on the complementarity of other instruments to carbon pricing. We further discuss distributional consequences of carbon pricing and present suggestions on how to address these. Other political economy issues that receive attention are lobbying, co‐benefits, international policy coordination, motivational crowding in/out, and long‐term commitment. The overview ends with reflections on implementing a global carbon price, whether through a carbon tax or emissions trading. The discussion goes beyond traditional arguments from environmental economics by including relevant insights from energy research and innovation studies as well.
199 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify the main directions in which the literature on EI has developed over time and use two algorithms to analyze a citation network of journal articles and books.
Abstract: This paper reviews the literature on environmental innovation (EI) and systematizes it by means of an original methodology identifying the main directions in which the literature on EI has developed over time. In order to do so, two algorithms are adopted and used to analyze a citation network of journal articles and books. The main path analysis reveals that this literature revolves around the following topics: i) determinants of EI; ii) economic effects of EI; iii) environmental effects of EI; and iv) policy inducement in EI. Each of these topics is discussed and implications from the main findings as well as possible future research extensions are outlined.
180 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compare green and non-green occupations to detect differences in terms of skill content and of human capital, revealing that green jobs use more intensively high-level cognitive and interpersonal skills compared to nongreen jobs.
173 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: This paper developed a dynamic industry model with heterogeneous firms to analyze the intra-industry effects of international trade and showed how the exposure to trade will induce only the more productive firms to enter the export market (while some less productive firms continue to produce only for the domestic market).
Abstract: This paper develops a dynamic industry model with heterogeneous firms to analyze the intra-industry effects of international trade. The model shows how the exposure to trade will induce only the more productive firms to enter the export market (while some less productive firms continue to produce only for the domestic market) and will simultaneously force the least productive firms to exit. It then shows how further increases in the industry's exposure to trade lead to additional inter-firm reallocations towards more productive firms. The paper also shows how the aggregate industry productivity growth generated by the reallocations contributes to a welfare gain, thus highlighting a benefit from trade that has not been examined theoretically before. The paper adapts Hopenhayn's (1992a) dynamic industry model to monopolistic competition in a general equilibrium setting. In so doing, the paper provides an extension of Krugman's (1980) trade model that incorporates firm level productivity differences. Firms with different productivity levels coexist in an industry because each firm faces initial uncertainty concerning its productivity before making an irreversible investment to enter the industry. Entry into the export market is also costly, but the firm's decision to export occurs after it gains knowledge of its productivity.
9,036 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the trade-off between environmental regulation and competitiveness unnecessarily raises costs and slows down environmental progress, and that instead of simply adding to cost, properly crafted environmental standards can trigger innovation offsets, allowing companies to improve their resource productivity.
Abstract: Accepting a fixed trade-off between environmental regulation and competitiveness unnecessarily raises costs and slows down environmental progress. Studies finding high environmental compliance costs have traditionally focused on static cost impacts, ignoring any offsetting productivity benefits from innovation. They typically overestimated compliance costs, neglected innovation offsets, and disregarded the affected industry's initial competitiveness. Rather than simply adding to cost, properly crafted environmental standards can trigger innovation offsets, allowing companies to improve their resource productivity. Shifting the debate from pollution control to pollution prevention was a step forward. It is now necessary to make the next step and focus on resource productivity.
8,154 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a model of endogenous growth is developed in which vertical innovations, generated by a competitive research sector, constitute the underlying source of growth and equilibrium is determined by a forward-looking difference equation, according to which the amount of research in any period depends upon the expected amount of the research next period.
Abstract: A model of endogenous growth is developed in which vertical innovations, generated by a competitive research sector, constitute the underlying source of growth. Equilibrium is determined by a forward-looking difference equation, according to which the amount of research in any period depends upon the expected amount of research next period. One source of this intertemporal relationship is creative destruction. That is, the prospect of more future research discourages current research by threatening to destroy the rents created by current research. The paper analyzes the positive and normative properties of stationary equilibria, in which research employment is constant and GNP follows a random walk with drift, although under some circumstances cyclical equilibria also exist. Both the average growth rate and the variance of the growth rate are increasing functions of the size of innovations, the size of the skilled labor force, and the productivity of research as measured by a parameter indicating the effect of research on the Poisson arrival rate of innovations; and decreasing functions of the rate of time preference of the representative individual. Under laissez faire the economy's growth rate may be more or less than optimal because, in addition to the appropriability and intertemporal spillover effects of other endogenous growth models, which tend to make growth slower than optimal, the model also has effects that work in the opposite direction. In particular, the fact that private research firms do not internalize the destruction of rents generated by their innovations introduces a business-stealing effect similar to that found in the partial-equilibrium patent race literature. When we endogenize the size of innovations we find that business stealing also makes innovations too small.
5,657 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the relationship between per capita income and various environmental indicators and found no evidence that environmental quality deteriorates steadily with economic growth, rather, for most indicators, economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement.
Abstract: We examine the reduced-form relationship between per capita income and various environmental indicators. Our study covers four types of indicators: urban air pollution, the state of the oxygen regime in river basins, fecal contamination of ri'ver basins, and contamination of river basins by heavy metals. We find no evidence that environmental quality deteriorates steadily with economic growth. Rather, for most indicators, economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement. The turning points for the different pollutants vary, but in most cases they come before a country reaches a per capita income of $8000. I. INTRODUCTION Will continued economic growth bring ever greater harm to the earth's environment? Or do increases in income and wealth sow the seeds for the amelioration of ecological problems? The answers to these questions are critical for the design of appropriate development strategies for lesser developed countries. Exhaustible and renewable natural resources serve as inputs into the production of many goods and services. If the composition of output and the methods of production were immutable, then damage to the environment would be inextricably linked to the scale of global economic activity. But substantial evidence suggests that development gives rise to a structural transformation in what an economy produces (see Syrquin [1989]). And societies have shown remarkable ingenuity in harnessing new technologies to conserve scarce resources. In principle, the forces leading to change in the composition and techniques of production may be sufficiently strong to more than offset the adverse effects of increased economic activity on the environment. In this paper we address this empirical issue using panel data on ambient pollution levels in many countries. Examination of the empirical relationship between national income and measures of environmental quality began with our *We thank the Ford Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Institute for Policy Reform, and the Centers of International Studies and of Economic Policy Studies at Princeton University for financial support. We are grateful to Peter Jaffee, who tutored us on the various dimensions of water quality, to Robert Bisson, who provided us with the GEMS/ Water data, and to seminar participants at the O.E.C.D. Development Centre and the Institute for International Economic Studies in Stockholm, Sweden, who gave us helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks go to James Laity, whose research assistance was simply extraordinary.
5,582 citations
01 Sep 1995
TL;DR: The Dutch flower industry has responded to its environmental problems by developing a closed-loop system to reduce the risk of infestation, reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides, and improving product quality as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The need for regulation to protect the environment gets widespread but grudging acceptance: widespread because everyone wants a livable planet, grudging because of the lingering belief that environmental regulations erode competitiveness. The prevailing view is that there is an inherent and fixed trade-off: ecology versus the economy. On one side of the trade-off are the social benefits that arise from strict environmental standards. On the other are industry's private costs for prevention and cleanup -- costs that lead to higher prices and reduced competitiveness. With the argument framed this way, progress on environmental quality has become a kind of arm-wrestling match. One side pushes for tougher standards; the other tries to roll them back. The balance of power shifts one way or the other depending on the prevailing political winds. This static view of environmental regulation, in which everything except regulation is held constant, is incorrect. If technology, products, processes, and customer needs were all fixed, the conclusion that regulation must raise costs would be inevitable. But companies operate in the real world of dynamic competition, not in the static world of much economic theory. They are constantly finding innovative solutions to pressures of all sorts -- from competitors, customers, and regulators. Properly designed environmental standards can trigger innovations that lower the total cost of a product or improve its value. Such innovations allow companies to use a range of inputs more productively -- from raw materials to energy to labor -- thus offsetting the costs of improving environmental impact and ending the stalemate. Ultimately, this enhanced resource productivity makes companies more competitive, not less. Consider how the Dutch flower industry has responded to its environmental problems. Intense cultivation of flowers in small areas was contaminating the soil and groundwater with pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Facing increasingly strict regulation on the release of chemicals, the Dutch understood that the only effective way to address the problem would be to develop a closed-loop system. In advanced Dutch greenhouses, flowers now grow in water and rock wool, not in soil. This lowers the risk of infestation, reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides, which are delivered in water that circulates and is reused. The tightly monitored closed-loop system also reduces variation in growing conditions, thus improving product quality. Handling costs have gone down because the flowers are cultivated on specially designed platforms. In addressing the environmental problem, then, the Dutch have innovated in ways that have raised the productivity with which they use many of the resources involved in growing flowers. The net result is not only dramatically lower environmental impact but also lower costs, better product quality, and enhanced global competitiveness. (See the insert "Innovating to Be Competitive: The Dutch Flower Industry.") This example illustrates why the debate about the relationship between competitiveness and the environment has been framed incorrectly. Policy makers, business leaders, and environmentalists have focused on the static cost impacts of environmental regulation and have ignored the more important offsetting productivity benefits from innovation. As a result, they have acted too often in ways that unnecessarily drive up costs and slow down progress on environmental issues. This static mind-set has thus created a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to ever more costly environmental regulation. Regulators tend to set regulations in ways that deter innovation. Companies, in turn, oppose and delay regulations instead of innovating to address them. The whole process has spawned an industry of litigators and consultants that drains resources away from real solutions. POLLUTION = INEFFICIENCY Are cases like the Dutch flower industry the exception rather than the rule? …
4,056 citations