Advertisement

The impacts of firms’ mobility on the environmental policy

  • Yu-Bong Lai
Research Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

This paper investigates the impacts of firms’ mobility on the environmental policy. We focus on two issues. The first one is the relationship between the stringency of environmental regulation and the distribution of environmental rents; the second one is how the interjurisdictional competition shapes the selection of instruments. We find that, in the absence of firms’ mobility, an instrument that allocates more rents to firms will give rise to a lower pollution tax rate, but, in the presence of mobile firms, this result may be reversed. Another finding is that the interjurisdictional competition for mobile firms can lead the governments to adopt non-revenue-raising instruments. This provides an explanation for the prevalence of such instruments without relying on political reasoning. We also find that a larger number of jurisdictions may tighten the regulation, which differs from the conventional results.

Keywords

Environmental policy Instrument selection interjurisdictional competition Mobile firms 

JEL Classification

F64 H23 Q58 R38 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to two anonymous referees and the editor Ken-Ichi Akao for their valuable comments and suggestions. The remaining errors are the author’s sole responsibility. Financial support from the Ministry of Science and Technology [106-2410-H-004 -003-] is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Aidt TS (2010) Green taxes: refunding rules and lobbying. J Environ Econ Manag 60:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bento AM, Jacobsen M (2007) Ricardian rents, environmental policy and the ‘double-dividend’ hypothesis. J Environ Econ Manag 53:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovenberg L, de Mooij R (1994) Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. Am Econ Rev 84:1085–1089Google Scholar
  4. Bovenberg L, van der Ploeg F (1994) Environmental policy, public finance and the labour market in a second-best world. J Public Econ 55:349–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1975) Polluters’ profits and political response: direct controls versus taxes. Am Econ Rev 65:139–147Google Scholar
  6. Cooper JC (2003) Price elasticity of demand for crude oil: estimates for 23 countries. OPEC Rev 27:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewees D (1983) Instrument choice in environmental policy. Econ Inq 21:53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fredriksson PG, Sterner T (2005) The political economy of refunded emissions payment programs. Econ Lett 87:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fullerton D (1997) Environmental levies and distortionary taxation: comment. Am Econ Rev 87:245–251Google Scholar
  10. Fullerton D, Metcalf G (2001) Environmental controls, scarcity rents, and pre-existing distortions. J Public Econ 80:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glazer A (1999) Local regulation may be excessively stringent. Reg Sci Urban Econ 29:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goulder LH, Parry IWH, Burtraw D (1997) Revenue-raising versus other approaches to environmental protection: the critical significance of preexisting tax distortions. RAND J Econ 28:708–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hahn RW (1990) The political economy of environmental regulation: towards a more unifying framework. Public Choice 65:21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoel M (1997) Environmental policy with endogenous plant locations. Scand J Econ 99:241–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim J, Wilson JD (1997) Capital mobility and environmental standards: racing to the bottom with multiple tax instruments. Jpn World Economy 9:537–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunce M, Shogren JF (2002) On environmental federalism and direct emission control. J Urban Econ 51:238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kunce M, Shogren JF (2005a) On efficiency of decentralized environmental regulation. J Regul Econ 28:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunce M, Shogren JF (2005b) On interjurisdictional competition and environmental federalism. J Environ Econ Manag 50:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee DR, Misiolek WS (1986) Substituting pollution taxation for general taxation: some implications for efficiency in pollution taxation. J Environ Econ Manag 13:338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacKenzie IA, Ohndorf M (2012) Cap-and-trade, taxes, and distributional conflict. J Environ Econ Manag 63:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markusen JR, Morey ER, Olewiler N (1995) Competition in regional environmental policies when plant locations are endogenous. J Public Econ 56:55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oates WE (2001) A reconsideration of environmental federalism. Resources for the future. Olson, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Oates WE, Schwab RM (1988) Economic competition among jurisdictions: efficiency enhancing or distortion inducing? J Public Econ 35:333–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ogawa H, Wildasin DE (2009) Think locally, act locally: spillovers, spillbacks, and efficient decentralized policymaking. Am Econ Rev 99:1206–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pezzey J (1992) The symmetry between controlling pollution by price and controlling it by quantity. Can J Econ 25:983–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pfluger M (2001) Ecological dumping under monopolistic competition. Scand J Econ 103:689–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rauscher M (1995) Environmental regulation and the location of polluting industries. Int Tax Public Finance 2:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Resources for the future. Olson, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Wellisch D (1995) Locational choices of firms and decentralized environmental policy with various instruments. J Urban Econ 37:290–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson JD (1996) Capital mobility and environmental standards: is there a theoretical basis for a race to the bottom? In: Bhagwati J, Hudec R (eds) Harmonization and fair trade, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 395–427Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public FinanceNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations