IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v9y1997i4p493-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory ‘balancing’ and the efficiency of green R&D

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Heyes
  • Catherine Liston-Heyes

Abstract

We identify and analyse several dynamic implications of setting environmental standards such as to ‘balance’ marginal costs and benefits. The adoption of such a regulatory approach is shown to effect (i) the speed of improvement of abatement technologies; (ii) the ‘direction’ (in a sense to be defined) of that improvement; (iii) its source and the distribution of the rents from it; and (iv) the rate of development of defensive (averting) technologies. Existing views are thoroughly synthesised in the context of a simple diagrammatic model, several new results are derived and at least one conventional wisdom questioned. The message of the analysis for legislators and regulators is that cost-benefit balancing should be done with care. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Heyes & Catherine Liston-Heyes, 1997. "Regulatory ‘balancing’ and the efficiency of green R&D," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(4), pages 493-507, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:9:y:1997:i:4:p:493-507
    DOI: 10.1007/BF02441763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02441763
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF02441763?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harford, Jon D., 1984. "Averting behavior and the benefits of reduced soiling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 296-302, September.
    2. James R. Baumgardner, 1991. "The Interaction between Forms of Insurance Contract and Types of Technical Change in Medical Care," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(1), pages 36-53, Spring.
    3. Pearce, David & Brisson, Inger, 1993. "BATNEEC: The Economics of Technology-Based Environmental Standards with a UK Case Illustration," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 9(4), pages 24-40, Winter.
    4. Susse Georg & Inge Røpke & Ulrik Jørgensen, 1992. "Clean technology — Innovation and environmental regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(6), pages 533-550, November.
    5. Brown, Deborah & Smith, Martha, 1984. "Crop substitution in the estimation of economic benefits due to ozone reduction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 347-362, December.
    6. Timothy J. Bartik, 2008. "Evaluating the Benefits of Non-marginal Reductions in Pollution Using Information on Defensive Expenditures," Book chapters authored by Upjohn Institute researchers, in: Joseph Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.),Revealed Preference Approaches to Environmental Valuation, volume 0, pages 459-475, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    7. J-J. Laffont & J. Tirole, 1994. "A Note on Environmental Innovation," Working papers 95-10, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    8. René Kemp & Xander Olsthoorn & Frans Oosterhuis & Harmen Verbruggen, 1992. "Supply and demand factors of Cleaner technologies: Some empirical evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(6), pages 615-634, November.
    9. Luken, Ralph A & Fraas, Arthur G, 1993. "The U.S. Regulatory Analysis Framework: A Review," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 9(4), pages 96-111, Winter.
    10. 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.
    11. Murdoch, James C. & Thayer, Mark A., 1990. "The benefits of reducing the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancers: A defensive expenditures approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 107-119, March.
    12. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    13. McCain, Roger A, 1978. "Endogenous Bias in Technical Progress and Environmental Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(4), pages 538-546, September.
    14. Yao, Dennis A., 1988. "Strategic responses to automobile emissions control: A game-theoretic analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 419-438, December.
    15. Mendelsohn, Robert, 1984. "Endogenous technical change and environmental regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 202-207, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alessio D’Amato & Bouwe R. Dijkstra, 2018. "Adoption incentives and environmental policy timing under asymmetric information and strategic firm behaviour," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(1), pages 125-155, January.
    2. Lee, Jaegul & Veloso, Francisco M. & Hounshell, David A., 2011. "Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1240-1252.
    3. Manuel Frondel & Jens Horbach & Klaus Rennings, 2007. "End‐of‐pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(8), pages 571-584, December.
    4. Vanessa OLTRA & Maïder SAINT JEAN, 2009. "Environmental Innovations and Industrial Dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-22, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. Nentjes, Andries & de Vries, Frans P. & Wiersma, Doede, 2007. "Technology-forcing through environmental regulation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 903-916, December.
    6. Sim, Seung-Gyu & Hong, Sungwan, 2020. "Technology licensing and environmental policy instruments: Price control versus quantity control," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    7. Krysiak, Frank C., 2008. "Prices vs. quantities: The effects on technology choice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1275-1287, June.
    8. Bruce Larson & George Frisvold, 1996. "Uncertainty over future environmental taxes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(4), pages 461-471, December.
    9. Kennedy, Peter W. & Laplante, Benoit, 1995. "Equilibrium incentives for adopting cleaner technology under emissions pricing," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1491, The World Bank.
    10. Marta Suárez-Varela & Ariel Dinar, 2020. "The Role of Curtailment Versus Efficiency on Spillovers Among Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Evidence from Two Towns in Granada, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    11. D’Amato, Alessio & Dijkstra, Bouwe R., 2015. "Technology choice and environmental regulation under asymmetric information," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 224-247.
    12. Yoram Bauman & Myunghun Lee & Karl Seeley, 2008. "Does Technological Innovation Really Reduce Marginal Abatement Costs? Some Theory, Algebraic Evidence, and Policy Implications," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 507-527, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Olivier Cadot & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 1995. "Innovation Under the Threat of Stricter Environmental Standards," CIRANO Working Papers 95s-11, CIRANO.
    15. Till Requate, 1995. "Incentives to adopt new technologies under different pollution-control policies," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 2(2), pages 295-317, August.
    16. Kesidou, Effie & Demirel, Pelin, 2012. "On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 862-870.
    17. Rabah Amir & Adriana Gama & Katarzyna Werner, 2018. "On Environmental Regulation of Oligopoly Markets: Emission versus Performance Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 147-167, May.
    18. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    19. 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.
    20. Gersbach, Hans & Glazer, Amihai, 1999. "Markets and regulatory hold-up problems," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt76f9604n, University of California Transportation Center.

    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:kap:enreec:v:9:y:1997:i:4:p:493-507. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.