IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v54y2021i3p1046-1071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decomposing changes in establishment‐level emissions with entry and exit

Author

Listed:
  • J. Scott Holladay
  • Lawrence D. LaPlue

Abstract

This paper decomposes pollution releases by US manufacturing establishments to show the relative importance of four establishment‐level channels: entry, exit, reallocation between survivors and within‐establishment adjustment of emissions intensity. Using a panel of establishment‐level output and pollution emissions to air and water for US manufacturers, we decompose changes in pollution emissions into the three channels typically presented in the literature: changes in scale (output), composition (industry market share) and industry‐level technique (emissions intensity). We then decompose changes due to industry‐level emissions intensity into four establishment‐level channels for three criteria air pollutants and water pollution. For volatile organic compound emissions, nearly two thirds of the reduction in sector‐level emissions intensity is due to within‐establishment reductions in emissions intensity. The other third is driven by reallocation to cleaner establishments. Though the magnitudes differ, results are broadly similar for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. On‐site releases of effluents to water exhibit a similar pattern, though the relative importance of reallocation is greater. We also find that within‐establishment reductions in water emissions are associated with increased transfers to off‐site publicly owned treatment facilities. The heterogeneous contributions across channels suggests that the cleanup in the US manufacturing sector likely has multiple sources. Analyse des mutations en matière d’émissions de polluants : les entreprises qui partent et celles qui restent. Cet article analyse les rejets polluants des industries américaines afin de souligner l'importance relative de quatre sources de baisse d'intensité des émissions : l'entrée d'une entreprise moins polluante, la sortie d'une entreprise plus polluante, le redéploiement des activités parmi les entreprises encore en activité et l'ajustement de l'intensité des émissions au sein même d'une entreprise. Ensuite, en nous appuyant sur un échantillon de productions et de rejets de polluants atmosphériques et aquatiques au niveau des entreprises américaines, nous analysons l’évolution des émissions en trois sources traditionnellement représentées dans la littérature : les changements d’échelle (production), les changements de composition (part de marché de l'industrie) et les changements de techniques industrielles (intensité des émissions). Nous analysons enfin les changements liés à l'intensité des émissions au niveau des entreprises en quatre sources pour trois des principaux polluants atmosphériques et aquatiques. Pour ce qui est des émissions de composés organiques volatils, la réduction de presque deux‐tiers des émissions au niveau du secteur découle de la baisse d'intensité des émissions au sein même des entreprises. Le dernier tiers découle du redéploiement des activités vers des établissements plus propres. Bien que l'ampleur des résultats puisse varier, ces derniers demeurent à peu près semblables pour les particules en suspension et le dioxyde de soufre. Le rejets d'effluents dans l'eau au niveau des sites industriels affichent une tendance comparable, bien que l'importance relative du redéploiement soit supérieure. En outre, nous constatons que la réduction d’émissions de polluants aquatiques au sein des entreprises résulte de transferts accrus vers des installations publiques de traitement des eaux situées à l'extérieur des sites de production. La contribution hétérogène des différentes sources de baisse d'intensité des émissions de polluants indique que le « nettoyage » du secteur manufacturier américain est probablement dû à une multiplicité de facteurs.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Scott Holladay & Lawrence D. LaPlue, 2021. "Decomposing changes in establishment‐level emissions with entry and exit," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 1046-1071, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:54:y:2021:i:3:p:1046-1071
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12528
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12528?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F. Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 180-185, May.
    2. Arik Levinson, 2015. "A Direct Estimate of the Technique Effect: Changes in the Pollution Intensity of US Manufacturing, 1990-2008," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 43-56.
    3. Mastromonaco, Ralph, 2015. "Do environmental right-to-know laws affect markets? Capitalization of information in the toxic release inventory," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 54-70.
    4. David A. Keiser & Joseph K. Shapiro, 2018. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 17-wp571, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    5. Jeffrey Brinkman & Daniele Coen‐Pirani & Holger Sieg, 2015. "Firm Dynamics In An Urban Economy ," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1135-1164, November.
    6. Matthew Gibson, 2019. "Regulation-Induced Pollution Substitution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 827-840, December.
    7. Marc J. Melitz & Sašo Polanec, 2015. "Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition with entry and exit," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 362-375, June.
    8. David A Keiser & Joseph S Shapiro, 2019. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 349-396.
    9. Joseph S. Shapiro & Reed Walker, 2018. "Why Is Pollution from US Manufacturing Declining? The Roles of Environmental Regulation, Productivity, and Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3814-3854, December.
    10. Lucia Foster & John C. Haltiwanger & C. J. Krizan, 2001. "Aggregate Productivity Growth: Lessons from Microeconomic Evidence," NBER Chapters, in: New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pages 303-372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Michael Greenstone & John A. List & Chad Syverson, 2011. "The Effects of Environmental Regulation on the Competiveness of U.S. Manufacturing," Working Papers 11-03, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    12. J. Scott Holladay, 2016. "Exporters and the environment," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 147-172, February.
    13. Olley, G Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1996. "The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1263-1297, November.
    14. Cherniwchan, Jevan, 2017. "Trade liberalization and the environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 130-149.
    15. Charles R. Hulten & Edwin R. Dean & Michael J. Harper, 2001. "New Developments in Productivity Analysis," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number hult01-1.
    16. Arik Levinson, 2009. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2177-2192, December.
    17. Jevan Cherniwchan & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2017. "Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 59-85, September.
    18. Stephen P. Ryan, 2012. "The Costs of Environmental Regulation in a Concentrated Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 1019-1061, May.
    19. Michael Greenstone, 2003. "Estimating Regulation-Induced Substitution: The Effect of the Clean Air Act on Water and Ground Pollution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 442-448, May.
    20. David Neumark & Brandon Wall & Junfu Zhang, 2011. "Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs? New Evidence for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 16-29, August.
    21. Jeffrey Brinkman & Daniele Coen‐Pirani & Holger Sieg, 2015. "Firm Dynamics In An Urban Economy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 1135-1164, November.
    22. Claire Brunel, 2017. "Pollution Offshoring and Emission Reductions in EU and US Manufacturing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 621-641, November.
    23. Scott Marchi & James Hamilton, 2006. "Assessing the Accuracy of Self-Reported Data: an Evaluation of the Toxics Release Inventory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 57-76, January.
    24. 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.
    25. Keith Barnatchez & Leland D. Crane & Ryan A. Decker, 2017. "An Assessment of the National Establishment Time Series (NETS) Database," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-110, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    26. Barrows, Geoffrey & Ollivier, Hélène, 2018. "Cleaner firms or cleaner products? How product mix shapes emission intensity from manufacturing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 134-158.
    27. Andersen, Dana C., 2017. "Do credit constraints favor dirty production? Theory and plant-level evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 189-208.
    28. Geoffrey Barrows & Helene Ollivier, 2016. "Emission intensity and firm dynamics: reallocation, product mix, and technology in India," GRI Working Papers 245, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    29. John Haltiwanger & Ron S. Jarmin & Javier Miranda, 2013. "Who Creates Jobs? Small versus Large versus Young," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 347-361, May.
    30. Jean-Marie Grether & Nicole Mathys & Jaime de Melo, 2009. "Scale, Technique and Composition Effects in Manufacturing SO 2 Emissions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 257-274, June.
    31. Jingbo Cui & Harvey Lapan & GianCarlo Moschini, 2016. "Productivity, Export, and Environmental Performance: Air Pollutants in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(2), pages 447-467.
    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. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2022. "Environmental consequences of natural gas wellhead pricing deregulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Thais NUNEZ-ROCHA & Inmaculada MARTíNEZ-ZARZOSO & Chahir ZAKI, 2022. "What type of trade is promoted by environmental regulations?," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2988, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    3. Sorroche-del-Rey, Yolanda & Piedra-Muñoz, Laura & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio, 2023. "Interrelationship between international trade and environmental performance: Theoretical approaches and indicators for sustainable development," MPRA Paper 119918, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Jevan Cherniwchan & M.Scott Taylor, 2022. "International Trade and the Environment: Three Remaining Empirical Challenges," Carleton Economic Papers 22-03, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    5. Leisner, Jonathan & Munch, Jakob R. & Nielsen, August Twile & Schaur, Georg, 2023. "The Impact of Offshoring and Import Competition on Firm-Level Carbon Emissions," IZA Discussion Papers 16556, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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. Choi, Jaerim & Hyun, Jay & Kim, Gueyon & Park, Ziho, 2023. "Trade Policy Uncertainty, Offshoring, and the Environment: Evidence from US Manufacturing Establishments," IZA Discussion Papers 15919, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Kwon, Ohyun & Zhao, Hao & Zhao, Min Qiang, 2023. "Global firms and emissions: Investigating the dual channels of emissions abatement," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2019. "The environmental effects of trade within and across sectors," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 118-139.
    4. Polina Ustyuzhanina, 2022. "Decomposition of air pollution emissions from Swedish manufacturing," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 195-223, April.
    5. Qirjo, Dhimitri & Pascalau, Razvan & Krichevskiy, Dmitriy, 2019. "CETA and Air Pollution," MPRA Paper 95608, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Damien Dussaux & Francesco Vona & Antoine Dechezleprêtre, 2020. "Carbon Offshoring: Evidence from French Manufacturing Companies," Working Papers hal-03403069, HAL.
    7. Damien Dussaux & Francesco Vona & Antoine Dechezleprêtre, 2023. "Imported carbon emissions: Evidence from French manufacturing companies," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 593-621, May.
    8. Lawrence D. LaPlue & Christopher A. Erickson, 2020. "Outsourcing, trade, technology, and greenhouse gas emissions," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(2), pages 217-245, April.
    9. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Badunenko, Oleg & Willox, Michael, 2022. "Do carbon taxes affect economic and environmental efficiency? The case of British Columbia’s manufacturing plants," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7j6trda2ip9uja53ghj5qo32rg is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7j6trda2ip9uja53ghj5qo32rg is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Xi Lin & Ling-Yun He, 2023. "The More the Merrier? Evidence from Firm-Level Exports and Environmental Performance in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 125-172, January.
    13. Barrows, Geoffrey & Ollivier, Hélène, 2018. "Cleaner firms or cleaner products? How product mix shapes emission intensity from manufacturing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 134-158.
    14. Barrows, Geoffrey & Ollivier, Hélène, 2021. "Foreign demand, developing country exports, and CO2 emissions: Firm-level evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    15. Cherniwchan, Jevan, 2017. "Trade liberalization and the environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 130-149.
    16. Hartmut Egger & Udo Kreickemeier & Philipp M. Richter, 2021. "Environmental Policy and Firm Selection in the Open Economy," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(4), pages 655-690.
    17. Wang, Shufei & Ma, Xinyu & Zhang, Xiang & Kang, Meiling, 2024. "Can foreign demand shocks reduce the pollution emission intensity? Evidence from exporters in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Jevan M. Cherniwchan & M. Scott Taylor, 2022. "International Trade and the Environment: Three Remaining Empirical Challenges," NBER Working Papers 30020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2022. "Environmental consequences of natural gas wellhead pricing deregulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. Joseph S. Shapiro & Reed Walker, 2018. "Why Is Pollution from US Manufacturing Declining? The Roles of Environmental Regulation, Productivity, and Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3814-3854, December.
    21. Geoffrey Barrows & Helene Ollivier, 2016. "Emission intensity and firm dynamics: reallocation, product mix, and technology in India," GRI Working Papers 245, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    22. Banerjee, Soumendra Nath & Roy, Jayjit & Yasar, Mahmut, 2021. "Exporting and pollution abatement expenditure: Evidence from firm-level data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    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:wly:canjec:v:54:y:2021:i:3:p:1046-1071. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.