IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea99/21515.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Porter Hypothesis, Property Rights, And Innovation Offsets: The Case Of Southwest Michigan Pork Producers

Author

Listed:
  • Srivastava, Lorie
  • Batie, Sandra S.
  • Norris, Patricia E.

Abstract

The Porter Hypothesis relates the effects of environmental regulation on (a) technological innovation and (b) economic performance. Specifically, it asserts that innovation offsets can occur. These are a type of technological change that will "partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with environmental regulation" (Porter and van der Linde, 1995, p. 98). The hypothesis has been highly debated, in part, because nomenclature has been careless. Also, the role of property rights in defining innovation offsets has been neglected. If the Porter Hypothesis has validity in agriculture, its policy implications are important. Recent changes in agro-environmental legislation provides an opportunity to more thoroughly investigate the hypothesis and its implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Srivastava, Lorie & Batie, Sandra S. & Norris, Patricia E., 1999. "The Porter Hypothesis, Property Rights, And Innovation Offsets: The Case Of Southwest Michigan Pork Producers," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21515, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea99:21515
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21515/files/sp99sr01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21515?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Francesco Ferrante, 1998. "Induced technical change, adjustment costs and environmental policy modelling," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 649-665.
    3. Jean-Paul Chavas & Michael Aliber & Thomas L. Cox, 2000. "An Analysis Of The Source And Nature Of Technical Change: The Case Of U.S. Agriculture," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(3), pages 482-492, August.
    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.
    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. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camille Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2016. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: new insights from frontier analysis," Working Papers hal-01512154, HAL.
    4. Blind, Knut & Petersen, Sören S. & Riillo, Cesare A.F., 2017. "The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 249-264.
    5. 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.
    6. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    7. 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).
    8. Petra Andries & Ute Stephan, 2019. "Environmental Innovation and Firm Performance: How Firm Size and Motives Matter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-17, June.
    9. Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Moslener, Ulf & Böhringer, Christoph & Ziegler, Andreas, 2008. "Clean and Productive? Evidence from the German Manufacturing Industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-091, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Abbas, Faisal & Anis, Omri, 2015. "Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 275-287.
    11. Everett, Tim & Ishwaran, Mallika & Ansaloni, Gian Paolo & Rubin, Alex, 2010. "Economic growth and the environment," MPRA Paper 23585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2001. "Productivité et réglementation environnementale: une analyse de l'hypothèse de Porter," Cahiers de recherche 0107, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    13. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2009. "Performance environnementale et économique de l'entreprise," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 71-94.
    14. Francesco Crespi & Claudia Ghisetti & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Taxonomy of Implemented Policy Instruments to Foster the Production of Green Technologies and Improve Environmental and Economic Performance. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 90," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58131.
    15. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "Competitiveness and ecological impacts of green energy technologies: firm-level evidence for the DACH region," KOF Working papers 16-420, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    16. 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.
    17. Stanley Kam Sing Wong, 2013. "Environmental Requirements, Knowledge Sharing and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from the Electronics Industry in China," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 321-338, July.
    18. Francesco Crespi & Claudia Ghisetti & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Environmental and innovation policies for the evolution of green technologies: a survey and a test," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 343-370, December.
    19. Jian Song, 2024. "Environmental pollution, manufacturing cost disease and structural change," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 21169-21195, August.
    20. Xie, Rong-hui & Yuan, Yi-jun & Huang, Jing-jing, 2017. "Different Types of Environmental Regulations and Heterogeneous Influence on “Green” Productivity: Evidence from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 104-112.

    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:ags:aaea99:21515. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.