Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 115–132 | Cite as

Clean technological change in developing-country industrial clusters: Mexican leather tanning

  • Allen Blackman
  • Arne Kildegaard


In many cities in developing countries, clusters of small and medium-sized enterprises create severe pollution problems. Because conventional regulatory approaches are typically ineffective in such situations, policy responses have increasingly focused on promoting voluntary clean technological change. Yet the data and analysis needed to guide such efforts are scarce. This article uses original firm-level survey data on a cluster of small and medium-scale leather tanneries in León, Guanajuato—Mexico’s leather goods capital—to identify the factors that drive the adoption of two clean tanning technologies. Using a multivariate probit model to estimate a system of seemingly unrelated regressions, we find—in contrast to conventional wisdom—that neither firm size nor regulatory pressure is positively correlated with adoption. Rather, the key driver of adoption is the firm’s human capital, the same factor that often explains conventional productivity-enhancing technological change. We also find that a private-sector trade association is an important source of technical information about clean technologies.

Key words

Clean technology Developing country Small and medium enterprises Mexico 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adeoti J (2002) Technology and the environment in sub-Saharan Africa; emerging trends in the Nigerian manufacturing industry. Ashgate, Burlington, VTGoogle Scholar
  2. Antle J (1987) Econometric estimation of producers’ risk attitudes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69:509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bárcenas G (2008) No han estudiado efectos de químicos de curtidoras (Studies of the effects of tanning chemicals do not exist). Correo de Hoy. Accessed 2 Jul 2010
  4. Bárcenas G (2009a) Reprueban protección al ambiente (Violating environmental protection). Correo de Hoy. Accessed 2 Jul 2010
  5. Bárcenas G (2009b) Incumplen curtidores acuerdos ambientales (Tanneries fail to fulfill environmental agreements). Correo de Hoy. Accessed 2 Jul 2010
  6. Bárcenas G (2010) Se deslinda cicur de muertes de aves (CICUR defended in bird deaths). Correo de Hoy. Accessed 2 Jul 2010
  7. Blackman A (2002) The economics of technology diffusion: implications for greenhouse gas mitigation in developing countries. In: Nagel S (ed) Environmental policy and developing nations. McFarland, Jefferson, NC, pp 288–307Google Scholar
  8. Blackman A (ed) (2006) Small firms and the environment in developing countries: collective impacts, collective action. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackman A (In Press) Alternative pollution control policies in developing countries. Review of Environmental Economics and PolicyGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackman A, Bannister GJ (1998) Community pressure and clean technology in the informal sector: an econometric analysis of the adoption of propane by traditional Mexican brickmakers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackman A, Sisto N (2006) Voluntary environmental regulation in developing countries: a Mexican case study. Natural Resources Journal 46:1005–1042Google Scholar
  12. Blackman A, Newbold S, Shih J-S, Evans D, Cook J, Batz M (2006) The benefits and costs of informal sector pollution control: traditional Mexican brick kilns. Environment and Development Economics 11:603–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (1995) The death of migratory birds at the Silva reservoir (1994–95). CEC Secretariat, Montreal, Quebec. Accessed 2 Jul 2010Google Scholar
  14. Feder G, Lau L, Lin J, Luo X (1990) The relationship between credit and productivity in Chinese agriculture: a microeconomic model of disequilibrium. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:1151–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher SM, Terza JV (1986) Analyzing farmers’ selection of available marketing alternatives using the multivariate probit model. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene WH (2008) Econometric analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 614, 826–831Google Scholar
  17. Hernández J (1987) Situacion actual del problema de contaminación en la región Calzatecnia 9. Center of Applied Innovation in Competitive Technologies, León, GuanajuatoGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaffe A, Newell R, Stavins R (2003) Technological change and the environment. In: Mäler K-G, Vincent J (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, vol 1. North-Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam, 461–516Google Scholar
  19. Kerr S, Newell R (2003) Policy-induced technology adoption: evidence from the US lead phasedown. Journal of Industrial Economics 51:317–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khanna M (2001) Sequential adoption of site-specific technologies and its implications for nitrogen productivity: a double selectivity model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83:35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lanjouw P (2006) Small-scale industry, poverty and the environment: a case study of Ecuador. In: Blackman A (ed) Small firms and the environment in developing countries: collective impacts, collective action. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 7–71Google Scholar
  22. Luken R, van Rompaey F (2008) Drivers for and barriers to environmentally sound technology adoption by manufacturing plants in nine developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 16s1:s67–s77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansfield E (1968) Industrial research and technological innovation. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Milliman S, Prince R (1989) Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Montalvo C (2002) Environmental policy and technological innovation: why do firms adopt or reject new technologies? Edward Elgar, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Pindyck R (1991) Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment. Journal of Economic Literature 29:1110–1152Google Scholar
  27. Rahm MR, Huffamn WE (1984) The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human capital and other variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramírez O, Shultz S (2000) Poisson count models to explain the adoption of agricultural and natural resource management technologies by small farmers in Central American countries. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32:21–33Google Scholar
  29. Rauniyar GP (1998) Adoption of management and technological practices by fishpond operators in Nepal. Aquaculture Economics and Management 2:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodriguez M (2005) La industria de la curtiduría contaminó el sistemsa hidráulico de León: ecologistas (The tanning industry contaminates the hydrological system of León: ecologists). La Jornada (UNAM). Accessed 2 Jul 2010
  31. Salazar G (2008) Economía ecológia frente a economía industrial: el caso de la industria de la curtiduría en México (Ecological economics versus industrial economics: the case of the tanning industry in Mexico). Argumentos 21:55–71Google Scholar
  32. Thorstensen T (1997) Pollution prevention and control for small tanneries. Journal of the American Leather Chemists Association 92:245–255Google Scholar
  33. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (1991) Tanneries and the environment: a technical guide. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (2004) The industrial development report, industrialization, environment and the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa: the new frontier in the fight against poverty. UNIDO, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. World Bank (1992) World development report: development and the environment. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World Bank (2000) Greening industry: new roles for communities, markets and governments. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Wozniak GD (1984) The adoption of interrelated innovations: a human capital approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 66:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu J, Babcock BA (1998) The choice of tillage rotation and soil testing practices: economic and environmental implications. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80:494–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Blackman
    • 1
  • Arne Kildegaard
    • 2
  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Minnesota MorrisMorrisUSA

Personalised recommendations