IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_3649.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Monopolistic Polluter under Environmental Liability Law: Incentives for Abatement and R&D

Author

Listed:
  • Alfred Endres
  • Tim Friehe

Abstract

This paper analyzes the output, abatement, and investment decisions made by a monopolistic polluter under environmental liability law. The model applied considers both integrated and end-of-pipe abatement technologies. We find that in the case of fixed technology, in many instances negligence produces more favorable results than strict liability in terms of social welfare. The reason is that output under strict liability is always less than first-best output, whereas output under negligence is not similarly limited. However, this ranking of liability rules may be reversed when technology is endogenous. Under such conditions investment in both integrated and end-of-pipe abatement technologies under negligence is guided by motives foreign to the social planner, whereas the polluter's calculus under strict liability is similar to that of the social planner.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2011. "The Monopolistic Polluter under Environmental Liability Law: Incentives for Abatement and R&D," CESifo Working Paper Series 3649, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_3649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp3649.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    2. David Malueg & Andrew Yates, 2009. "Bilateral Oligopoly, Private Information, and Pollution Permit Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 553-572, August.
    3. A. Mitchell Polinsky & William P. Rogerson, 1983. "Products Liability, Consumer Misperceptions, and Market Power," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 581-589, Autumn.
    4. Parry, Ian W.H., 2003. "On the implications of technological innovation for environmental policy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 57-76, February.
    5. Endres,Alfred, 2011. "Environmental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521173926, January.
    6. Endres, A, 1978. "Monopoly-Power as a Means for Pollution-Control?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 185-187, December.
    7. Barnett, A H, 1980. "The Pigouvian Tax Rule under Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1037-1041, December.
    8. Robert D. Cooter, 1991. "Economic Theories of Legal Liability," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 11-30, Summer.
    9. Endres, Alfred & Friehe, Tim, 2011. "Incentives to diffuse advanced abatement technology under environmental liability law," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 30-40, July.
    10. Grischa Perino, 2010. "Technology Diffusion with Market Power in the Upstream Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 403-428, August.
    11. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen & Regina Bertram, 2008. "Environmental Liability Law and Induced Technical Change: The Role of Spillovers," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 164(2), pages 254-279, June.
    12. María-Eugenia Sanin & Skerdilajda Zanaj, 2011. "A Note on Clean Technology Adoption and its Influence on Tradeable Emission Permits Prices," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 561-567, April.
    13. Jan-Tjeerd Boom & Bouwe Dijkstra, 2009. "Permit Trading and Credit Trading: A Comparison of Cap-Based and Rate-Based Emissions Trading Under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 107-136, September.
    14. Lambert Schoonbeek & Frans Vries, 2009. "Environmental taxes and industry monopolization," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 94-106, August.
    15. Kurtyka, Oliwia & Mahenc, Philippe, 2011. "The switching effect of environmental taxation within Bertrand differentiated duopoly," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 267-277, September.
    16. Endres,Alfred, 2011. "Environmental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107002142, January.
    17. Buchanan, James M, 1969. "External Diseconomies, Corrective Taxes, and Market Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 174-177, March.
    18. Till Requate, 2005. "Timing and Commitment of Environmental Policy, Adoption of New Technology, and Repercussions on R&D," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(2), pages 175-199, June.
    19. Alfred Endres & Regina Bertram & Bianca Rundshagen, 2007. "Environmental Liability Law and Induced Technical Change – The Role of Discounting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 341-366, March.
    20. Pim Heijnen & Lambert Schoonbeek, 2008. "Environmental groups in monopolistic markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 379-396, April.
    21. Clarke, Leon & Weyant, John & Edmonds, Jae, 2008. "On the sources of technological change: What do the models assume," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 409-424, March.
    22. Requate, Till & Unold, Wolfram, 2003. "Environmental policy incentives to adopt advanced abatement technology:: Will the true ranking please stand up?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 125-146, February.
    23. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    24. Dallas Burtraw & Art Fraas & Nathan Richardson, 2011. "Policy Monitor--Greenhouse Gas Regulation under the Clean Air Act: A Guide for Economists," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 293-313, Summer.
    25. Burtraw, Dallas & Fraas, Arthur G. & Richardson, Nathan, 2011. "Greenhouse Gas Regulation under the Clean Air Act: A Guide for Economists," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-08, Resources for the Future.
    26. Alistair Ulph & David Ulph, 2007. "Climate change—environmental and technology policies in a strategic context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 159-180, May.
    27. Endres, Alfred & Friehe, Tim, 2011. "R&D and abatement under environmental liability law: Comparing incentives under strict liability and negligence if compensation differs from harm," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 419-425, May.
    28. Endres, Alfred & Bertram, Regina, 2006. "The development of care technology under liability law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 503-518, December.
    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. Eric Langlais & Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2022. "Incentives to differentiate under environmental liability laws : Product customization and precautionary effort," EconomiX Working Papers 2022-20, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    2. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2015. "The Compensation Regime in Liability Law: Incentives to Curb Environmental Harm, Ex Ante and Ex Post," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(1), pages 105-123, September.
    3. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2012. "Generalized Progress of Abatement Technology: Incentives Under Environmental Liability Law," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 61-71, September.
    4. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Maria J. Gil‐Moltó, 2018. "Is emission intensity or output U‐shaped in the strictness of environmental policy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 177-201, April.
    5. Cosnita-Langlais, Andreea & Langlais, Eric, 2024. "Environmental liability and product differentiation: Strict liability versus negligence revisited," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    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. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2012. "Generalized Progress of Abatement Technology: Incentives Under Environmental Liability Law," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 61-71, September.
    2. Tim Friehe, 2013. "The Role of Investment in Environmental Lobbying Contests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 337-352, November.
    3. Julien Jacob & Sandrine Spaeter, 2016. "Large-Scale Risks and Technological Change: What About Limited Liability?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 18(1), pages 125-142, February.
    4. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe & Bianca Rundshagen, 2015. "Environmental liability law and R&D subsidies: results on the screening of firms and the use of uniform policy," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(4), pages 521-541, October.
    5. Endres, Alfred & Friehe, Tim, 2011. "R&D and abatement under environmental liability law: Comparing incentives under strict liability and negligence if compensation differs from harm," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 419-425, May.
    6. Endres, Alfred & Friehe, Tim, 2011. "Incentives to diffuse advanced abatement technology under environmental liability law," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 30-40, July.
    7. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen, 2013. "Incentives to Diffuse Advanced Abatement Technology Under the Formation of International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(2), pages 177-210, October.
    8. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2014. "The reasonable person standard: trading off static and dynamic efficiency," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 249-267, April.
    9. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe, 2017. "Design standards and technology adoption: welfare effects of increasing environmental fines when the number of firms is endogenous," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(2), pages 427-450, April.
    10. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe & Bianca Rundshagen, 2015. "“It’s All in the Mix!”- Internalizing externalities with R&D subsidies and environmental liability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 151-178, January.
    11. repec:bla:germec:v:11:y:2010:i::p:86-107 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen, 2010. "Standard Oriented Environmental Policy: Cost‐Effectiveness and Incentives for ‘Green Technology’," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(1), pages 86-107, February.
    13. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    14. Claudia Ranocchia & Luca Lambertini, 2021. "Porter Hypothesis vs Pollution Haven Hypothesis: Can There Be Environmental Policies Getting Two Eggs in One Basket?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(1), pages 177-199, January.
    15. Friehe, Tim & Langlais, Eric, 2017. "Prevention and cleanup of dynamic harm under environmental liability," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 107-120.
    16. Jihad C. Elnaboulsi, 2015. "Environmental Regulation and Policy Design: The Impact of the Regulator?s Ecological Conscience on the Tax Setting Process," Working Papers 2015-11, CRESE.
    17. Damien Sans & Sonia Schwartz & Hubert Stahn, 2015. "On Abatement Services: Market Power and Efficient Environmental Regulation," Working Papers halshs-01182200, HAL.
    18. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Maria J. Gil‐Moltó, 2018. "Is emission intensity or output U‐shaped in the strictness of environmental policy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 177-201, April.
    19. Idrissa Sibailly, 2013. "On licensing and diffusion of clean technologies in oligopoly," Working Papers hal-00911453, HAL.
    20. Requate, Till, 2005. "Environmental Policy under Imperfect Competition: A Survey," Economics Working Papers 2005-12, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    21. Hattori, Keisuke, 2011. "Optimal Environmental Policy under Monopolistic Provision of Clean Technologies," MPRA Paper 28837, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:ces:ceswps:_3649. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.