Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 113–138 | Cite as

Effluent taxes, market structure, and the rate and direction of endogenous technological change

Article

Abstract

This paper studies the effects of effluent taxes on firms’ allocation of resources to cost-reducing and emission-reducing R&D, and on entrepreneurs’ decisions to develop new goods and enter the market. A tax set at an exogenous rate that does not depend on the state of technology reduces growth, the level of consumption of each good, and raises the number of firms. The induced increase in the variety of goods is a benefit not considered in previous analyses. In terms of environmental benefits, the tax induces a positive rate of pollution abatement that offsets the “dirty” side of economic growth. A tax set at an endogenous rate that holds constant the tax burden per unit of output, in contrast, has ambiguous effects on growth, the scale of activity of each firm and the number of firms. Besides being novel, the potential positive growth effect of this type of effluent tax is precisely what makes this instrument effective for welfare-maximizing purposes. The socially optimal policy, in fact, requires the tax burden per unit of output to equal the marginal rate of substitution between the growth rate of consumption and abatement. Moreover, a tax/subsidy on entry is needed, depending on whether the contribution of product variety to pollution dominates consumers’ love of variety.

Keywords

Growth Market structure R&D Effluent taxes Environment 

JEL Classification

E10 L16 O31 O40 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1998). Endogenous growth theory. MIT University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  2. Aghion P, Howitt P (2005). Growth with quality-improving innovations: an integrated framework. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth, pp. North Holland, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin W, Scott J (1987). Market structure and technological change. Harwood Academy, New York Google Scholar
  4. Bolin B (2003). Geophysical and geochemical aspects of environmental regulation. In: Maler K, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, pp. North Holland, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  5. Brock W, Taylor M (2005). Economic growth and the environment: a review of theory and the empirics. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth, pp. North Holland, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  6. Carlton D, Loury G (1980). The limitation of Pigouvian taxes as a long-run remedy for externalities. Q J Econ 95: 559–566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlton D, Loury G (1986). The limitation of Pigouvian taxes as a long-run remedy for externalities: an extension of results. Q J Econ 101: 631–634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coehen W, Levin R (1989). Empirical studies of market structure and innovation. In: Schmalensee R, Willig R (eds) Handbook of industrial organization, pp. North Holland, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  9. Goulder L, Schneider S (1999). Induced technical change and the attractiveness of CO 2 emissions abatement policies. Resour Energy Econ 21: 211–253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimaud A (1999). Pollution permits and sustainable development in a Schumpeterian growth model. J Environ Econ Manage 38: 249–266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Helfand G, Berck P, Maull T (2003). The theory of pollution policy. In: Maler K, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, pp. North Holland, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  12. Jaffe A, Peterson S, Portney P, Stavins R (1995). Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing. J Econ Lit 33: 132–163 Google Scholar
  13. Jaffe A, Newell R, Stavins R (2003). Technological change and the environment. In: Maler K, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, pp. North-Holland, Amsterdam Google Scholar
  14. Joskow P, Schmalensee R, Bailey E (1998). The market for sulfur dioxide emissions. Am Econ Rev 88: 669–685 Google Scholar
  15. Lange A, Requate T (1999). Emission taxes for price setting firms: differentiated commodities and monopolistic competition. In: Petrakis E, Sartzetakis E, Xepapadeas A (eds) Environmental regulation and market power, pp. Edward Elgar, Celthenham Google Scholar
  16. Palmer K, Oates W, Portney P (1995). Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the No-cost paradigm?. J Econ Perspect 9: 119–132 Google Scholar
  17. Peretto P (1996). Sunk costs, market structure and growth. Int Econ Rev 37: 895–923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peretto P (1998). Technological change and population growth. J Econ Growth 3: 283–311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peretto P (1999). Cost reduction, entry and the interdependence of market structure and economic growth. J Monetary Econ 43: 173–195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrakis E, Sartzetakis E, Xepapadeas A (eds) (1999) Environmental regulation and market power. Edward Elgar, Celthenham Google Scholar
  21. Porter M (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific Am 264: 168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porter M, van der Linde C (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9: 97–118 Google Scholar
  23. Romer P (1990). Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ 98: S71–S102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmalensee R, Joskow P, Ellerman D, Montero J, Bailey E (1998). An interim evaluation of sulfur dioxide emission trading. J Econ Perspect 12: 53–68 Google Scholar
  25. Smith VK, Walsh R (2000). Do painless environmental policies exist?. J Risk Uncertainty 21: 73–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smulders S, van de Klundert T (1995). Imperfect competition, concentration and growth with firm-specific R&D. Eur Econ Rev 39: 139–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smulders S (2000) Economic growth and environmental quality. In: Folmer H, Gabel LPrinciples of Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar, CelthenhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Spulber D (1985). Efficient regulation and long-run optimality. J Environ Econ Manage 12: 103–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stavins R (1998). What can we learn from the grand policy experiments? Lessons from SO 2 allowances trading. J Econ Perspect 12: 69–88 Google Scholar
  30. Sutton J (1991). Sunk costs and market structure. MIT University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  31. Thompson P (2001). The microeconomics of an R&D-based model of endogenous growth. J Econ Growth 6: 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations