IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/udf/wpaper/2015084.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The impact of pollution abatement investments on technology: Porter hypothesis revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Musolesi
  • Jean Pierre Huiban
  • Camilla Mastromarco
  • Michel Simioni

Abstract

This paper revisits the Porter hypothesis by pursuing two new directions. First, we compare the results obtained with two complementary approaches: parametric stochastic frontier analysis and conditional nonparametric frontier analysis. They presents relative advantages and drawbacks. Secondly, we pay attention not only on the average pollution abatement e ort e ect but we also focus on its variability across rms and over time. We provide new results suggesting that the traditional view about the e ect of environmental regulation on productivity and the Porter hypothesis may coexist. This evidence supports the idea that a well-designed environmental regulation a ects positively the rm performances in some instances.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Musolesi & Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Michel Simioni, 2015. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on technology: Porter hypothesis revisited," Working Papers 2015084, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:udf:wpaper:2015084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://out.economia.unife.it/uploads/dip_deit/quaderni/2015084.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Broberg & Per-Olov Marklund & Eva Samakovlis & Henrik Hammar, 2013. "Testing the Porter hypothesis: the effects of environmental investments on efficiency in Swedish industry," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 43-56, August.
    2. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    3. Simon N. Wood, 2006. "Low-Rank Scale-Invariant Tensor Product Smooths for Generalized Additive Mixed Models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 1025-1036, December.
    4. Bădin, Luiza & Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Léopold, 2012. "How to measure the impact of environmental factors in a nonparametric production model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(3), pages 818-833.
    5. Gerhard Kempkes & Carsten Pohl, 2010. "The efficiency of German universities-some evidence from nonparametric and parametric methods," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(16), pages 2063-2079.
    6. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (II): Applications of the Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 2, number fuss1978a.
    7. 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.
    8. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    9. Cinzia Daraio & Léopold Simar, 2005. "Introducing Environmental Variables in Nonparametric Frontier Models: a Probabilistic Approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 93-121, September.
    10. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    11. H. Fried & C. Lovell & S. Schmidt & S. Yaisawarng, 2002. "Accounting for Environmental Effects and Statistical Noise in Data Envelopment Analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 157-174, January.
    12. Timmer, C P, 1971. "Using a Probabilistic Frontier Production Function to Measure Technical Efficiency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 776-794, July-Aug..
    13. Jondrow, James & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Materov, Ivan S. & Schmidt, Peter, 1982. "On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 233-238, August.
    14. Badin, Luiza & Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Léopold, 2010. "Optimal bandwidth selection for conditional efficiency measures: A data-driven approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 633-640, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Chambers,Robert G., 1988. "Applied Production Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521314275, October.
    17. Tim Coelli & Sergio Perelman & Elliot Romano, 1999. "Accounting for Environmental Influences in Stochastic Frontier Models: With Application to International Airlines," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 251-273, June.
    18. Michael Greenstone, 2002. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(6), pages 1175-1219, December.
    19. Deborah Aiken & Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf & Carl Pasurka, 2009. "Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 11-28, September.
    20. Florent Vieux & Nicole N. Darmon & Djilali Touazi & Louis Georges Soler, 2012. "Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: Changing the Q23 diet structure or consuming less?," Post-Print hal-02649979, HAL.
    21. 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.
    22. Marin, Giovanni & Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Montini, Anna, 2012. "Linking NAMEA and Input output for ‘consumption vs. production perspective’ analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 71-84.
    23. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    24. Henry, Michael & Kneller, Richard & Milner, Chris, 2009. "Trade, technology transfer and national efficiency in developing countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 237-254, February.
    25. Xi Yang & Yang Yao, 2012. "Environmental Compliance and Firm Performance: Evidence from China," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 74(3), pages 397-424, June.
    26. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.), 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780444850133.
    27. Vieux, F. & Darmon, N. & Touazi, D. & Soler, L.G., 2012. "Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: Changing the diet structure or consuming less?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 91-101.
    28. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (I): The Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 1, number fuss1978.
    29. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    30. Cazals, Catherine & Florens, Jean-Pierre & Simar, Leopold, 2002. "Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-25, January.
    31. Mastromarco, Camilla & Ghosh, Sucharita, 2009. "Foreign Capital, Human Capital, and Efficiency: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis for Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 489-502, February.
    32. Battese, G E & Coelli, T J, 1995. "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 325-332.
    33. George E. Battese, 1997. "A Note On The Estimation Of Cobb‐Douglas Production Functions When Some Explanatory Variables Have Zero Values," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 250-252, January.
    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. George van Leeuwen & Pierre Mohnen, 2017. "Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: an empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 63-77, February.
    2. Jana Stoever & John P. Weche, 2018. "Environmental Regulation and Sustainable Competitiveness: Evaluating the Role of Firm-Level Green Investments in the Context of the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(2), pages 429-455, June.
    3. Carl Gaigné & Bertrand Schmitt & Patrick Sevestre & Michel Simioni, 2016. "Editorial to the special issue in memory of Jean-Pierre Huiban," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 85-87, September.
    4. Fei Peng & Langchuan Peng & Jie Mao & Peng Lu, 2021. "The Short-Run Effect of a Local Fiscal Squeeze on Pollution Abatement Expenditures: Evidence from China’s VAT Pilot Program," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 453-485, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: a nonparametric approach," SEEDS Working Papers 0918, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Sep 2018.
    3. Jean Pierre Huiban & Camilla Mastromarco & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2018. "Reconciling the Porter hypothesis with the traditional paradigm about environmental regulation: a nonparametric approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 85-100, December.
    4. Bu, Maoliang & Qiao, Zhenzi & Liu, Beibei, 2020. "Voluntary environmental regulation and firm innovation in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 10-18.
    5. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Bengochea-Morancho, Aurelia & Morales-Lage, Rafael, 2019. "Does environmental policy stringency foster innovation and productivity in OECD countries?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.
    7. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Giovanni Marin & Susanna Mancinelli & Francesco Nicolli, 2015. "Carbon dioxide reducing environmental innovations, sector upstream/downstream integration and policy: evidence from the EU," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 709-735, November.
    8. Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf & Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 442-451.
    9. Zhang, Yijun & Song, Yi, 2022. "Tax rebates, technological innovation and sustainable development: Evidence from Chinese micro-level data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Gonseth, Camille & Cadot, Olivier & Mathys, Nicole A. & Thalmann, Philippe, 2015. "Energy-tax changes and competitiveness: The role of adaptive capacity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 127-135.
    11. Michael L. Polemis & Thanasis Stengos & Nickolaos G. Tzeremes, 2020. "Modeling the effect of competition on US manufacturing sectors’ efficiency: an order-m frontier analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 27-41, August.
    12. Nieswand, Maria & Seifert, Stefan, 2018. "Environmental factors in frontier estimation – A Monte Carlo analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 133-148.
    13. Dyah Wulan Sari & Noor Aini Khalifah & Suyanto Suyanto, 2016. "The spillover effects of foreign direct investment on the firms’ productivity performances," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 199-233, December.
    14. Sascha Rexhäuser & Christian Rammer, 2014. "Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 145-167, January.
    15. Antonietti, Roberto & Marzucchi, Alberto, 2014. "Green tangible investment strategies and export performance: A firm-level investigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 150-161.
    16. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    17. 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.
    18. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Bernard Sinclair Desgagné & Louis-Georges Soler, 2016. "The agro-food industry, public health, and environmental protection: investigating the Porter hypothesis in food regulation," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 127-140, September.
    19. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    20. Caroline Orset, 2014. "Innovation and the precautionary principle," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 780-801, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Porter hypothesis; pollution abatement investment; stochastic frontier analysis; time-varying eciency; Vuong test; conditional nonparametric frontier analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:udf:wpaper:2015084. 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: Alberto Benati (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deferit.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.