Skip to main content
Log in

International recycling firm joint ventures and optimal recycling standards

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we consider a Southern economy consisting of an upstream duopoly market for recycled materials and a downstream perfectly competitive market for final goods. In our model, the Northern and Southern recyclers can form a joint venture (JV) if bargaining is successful. Then, if we assume that the marginal cost of the Southern recycler is higher than that of the Northern recycler, we obtain the following main results in the case where the JV is established. First, a stricter recycling standard decreases the Southern recycler’s share of profits from the JV, even though it increases its overall profit. Second, the recycling standard lowers the price of recycled materials and thus decreases the price of final goods. Third, if the Southern government sets the recycling standard optimally, the optimal standard in the JV may be lower than that in the monopoly of the Northern recycler. The optimal standard in the JV then falls lower with an increase in the marginal cost of the Southern recycler. Finally, if the Southern government sets the excise duty optimally, a stricter recycling standard might increase or decrease the optimal duty level. However, in the case of the JV, it will decrease the amount of waste even when the ex-ante recycling standard is low, as long as the market for final goods is large.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. DOWA has also established a JV for the recycling of electric appliances and precious metals with a local government-linked company in Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province in China.

  2. China, Korea, and Taiwan now have recycling systems similar to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive in the European Union.

  3. Dubois and Eyckmans (2015) call the standard the recycling rate target.

  4. We do not consider the negative externality from recycling residuals in this paper.

  5. E.g., see Palmer et al. (1997), Calcott and Walls (2000), and Eichner and Pethig (2001), which investigate recycling policies to attain efficient levels of recycling and waste disposal under perfect competition.

  6. Higashida and Jinji (2006) analyze the strategic use of Recycled Content Standards between two countries where the world supply constraint for recycled materials is and is not binding. In their model, home and foreign final goods firms engage in Cournot competition, while recycled materials are supplied under perfect competition.

  7. A number of studies have examined international JVs without the environmental problem. See, e.g., Abe and Zhao (2000), Wong and Leung (2002), and Ishikawa et al. (2009) regarding this theme.

  8. Chiou and Hu (2001) and Ouchida and Goto (2016) have analyzed JVs in environmental R&D branch in relationship to the level of emission taxes.

  9. In a broad sense, the recycling industry is included in environmental industries. See Sinclair-Desgagné (2008) for a comprehensive survey of environmental industries. As previous papers whose setting is close to our model, Greaker and Rosendahl (2008), Nimubona (2012), and Dijkstra and Mathew (2015) examine trade in environmental goods (EGs) under the model consisting of two vertically related markets for final goods and imperfectly competitive EGs, although these papers do not consider JVs.

  10. The assumption \( c_{N}^{R} = 0 \) makes our comparative static results clearer and does not change the essence of our analysis. Moreover, if we adversely assume \( c_{N}^{R} > c_{S}^{R} \left( { = 0} \right) \), our results up to the comparative statics in Sect. 4 are completely symmetric. As explained below, when the gap in the marginal cost between recyclers N and S widens, the recycler that holds the cost advantage may monopolize the market for recycled materials. Hence, if we assume \( c_{N}^{R} \ge c_{S}^{R} \left( { = 0} \right) \), contrary to our present model, the Southern welfare will achieve its highest level not under the JV but under a monopoly of recycler S; and then the structure of optimal recycling standards in Sect. 5 would also be modified.

  11. We assume that the final goods wasted at time \( T - 1 \) are recycled as recycled materials at time \( T \). However, as in Higashida and Jinji (2006), we focus only on the steady-state equilibrium.

  12. If \( eX > \mu X \), that is, the supply of recycled materials outweighs the demand for them, we have \( e \ne \mu \), and thus the recycling standard does not directly change the mixture ratio in the final goods sector. In this case, recycled materials may be exported abroad if the world price of the materials is higher than that of this country. See Higashida and Jinji (2006) for trade in recycled materials. Whether or not the world supply constraint for the materials is binding plays an important role in determining the world price of recycled materials.

  13. We assume that the demand curve has a slope of one. However, this assumption does not yield different results than the general linear demand curve.

  14. By applying \( c^{R} \ge \omega /2e \) to (8), the monopoly output of recycler N, \( y_{N}^{M} \), is expressed as \( y_{N}^{M} \left( {e,t} \right) = e\omega /2 \). Then, at this output level, the price of recycled materials, \( r_{N}^{M} \), and recycler N’s monopoly profit, \( \pi_{N}^{M} \), are written as \( r_{N}^{M} \left( {e,t} \right) = \omega /2e \) and \( \pi_{N}^{M} \left( {e,t} \right) = \omega^{2} /4 \), respectively.

  15. If \( c^{R} < \left( {a - t} \right)/2 \), the price of domestic recycled materials, \( r^{j} , (j = M,O,J \)), will be very cheap. Then, there are two scenarios under this condition. (I) The price of recycled materials is lower than that of virgin materials, \( r^{j} < w^{*} \). In this case, virgin materials are not in demand and the recycling standard becomes useless. (II) The price of recycled materials is equal to that of virgin materials, \( r^{j} = w^{*} \). In this case, recycled materials compete with virgin materials on the international market, because these materials are perfect substitutes in our model. We exclude these two scenarios in this paper.

  16. The results of the comparative statics discussed in this subsection are given in Appendix 1.

  17. Since the recycling standard is smaller than one, \( \omega /2e > c^{R} > \left( {a - t} \right)/2 \) is satisfied. In this case, from (9), \( \partial \pi_{N}^{O} /\partial e = 2\left( {\omega + ec^{R} } \right)\left( {w^{*} + c^{R} } \right)/9 > 0 \) and \( \partial \pi_{S}^{O} /\partial e = 2\left( {\omega - 2ec^{R} } \right)\left( {w^{*} - 2c^{R} } \right)/9 < 0 \).

  18. We also show this result in Appendix 1.

  19. As mentioned in footnote 15, we assume that virgin and recycled materials are perfect substitutes. With this assumption, the recycling standard still affects the production of final goods, even when the unit cost of each recycler, \( c^{R} \), is constant and, therefore, does not depend on the standard.

  20. We can derive a joint optimal combination of these policies in each case, i.e., the case of the JV or N monopoly. We included the calculations of these optimal policy combinations in the supplement file.

  21. Refer to Kinnaman et al. (2014) for a definition of the social cost of managing municipal waste. Moreover, numerous authors including Palmer et al. (1997), Acuff and Kaffine (2013), and Kaffine (2014) argue that scrap prices, as determined by the market-clearing condition for scrap goods, play an important role as a determinant of waste and recycling policy costs.

  22. Note that as mentioned in Sect. 4.1, stricter recycling standard increases the total profit of the JV, \( \pi^{J} \), while it expands the gap in the recyclers’ profits refereed at the threat point, \( \pi_{N}^{O} - \pi_{S}^{O} \). The sign of \( \partial \pi_{S}^{J} /\partial e \) depends on these opposite impacts.

  23. We also showed the derivation of the optimal recycling standard in the case of the JV in the supplement file.

References

  • Abe K, Zhao L (2000) International joint ventures, economic integration and government policy. In: Krueger TA (ed) The role of foreign direct investment in East Asian Economic Development by Ito. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Abe K, Zhao L (2005) Endogenous international joint ventures and the environment. J Int Econ 67:221–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acuff K, Kaffine DT (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions, waste and recycling policy. J Environ Econ Manag 65:74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calcott P, Walls M (2000) Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage upstream “design for environment”? Am Econ Rev 90:233–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou JR, Hu JL (2001) Environmental research joint ventures under emission taxes. Environ Resour Econ 20:129–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra BR, Mathew AJ (2016) Liberalizing trade in environmental goods and services. Environ Econ Policy Stud 18:499–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-015-0121-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois M, Eyckmans J (2015) Efficient waste management policies and strategic behavior with open borders. Environ Resour Econ 62:907–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichner T (2005) Imperfect competition in the recycling industry. Metroeconomica 56:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichner T, Pethig R (2001) Product design and efficient management of recycling and waste treatment. J Environ Econ Manag 41:109–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greaker M, Rosendahl KE (2008) Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms. J Environ Econ Manag 56:246–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higashida K, Jinji N (2006) Strategic use of recycled content standards under international duopoly. J Environ Econ Manag 51:242–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa J, Sugita Y, Zhao L (2009) Corporate control, foreign ownership regulations and technology transfer. Econ Rec 85:197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaffine DT (2014) Scrap prices, waste, and recycling policy. Land Econ 90:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnaman TC, Shinkuma T, Yamamoto M (2014) The socially optimal recycling rate: evidence from Japan. J Environ Econ Manag 68:54–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nimubona AD (2012) Pollution policy and trade liberalization of environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 53:323–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouchida Y, Goto D (2016) Environmental research joint ventures and time-consistent emission tax: endogenous choice of R&D formation. Econ Model 55:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer K, Sigman H, Walls M (1997) The cost of reducing municipal solid waste. J Environ Econ Manag 33:128–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair-Desgagné B (2008) The environmental goods and services industry. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 2:69–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugeta H, Shinkuma T (2012) International trade in recycled materials in vertically related markets. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14:357–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugeta H, Shinkuma T (2014) Optimal trade and recycling policies in vertically related markets. In: Kinnaman TC, Takeuchi K (eds) Handbook on waste management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong K, Leung W (2002) International joint ventures, moral hazards and technology spillovers. In: Woodland AD (ed) Economic theory and international trade. Essays in honour of Murray C. Kemp. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are deeply indebted to Kenzo Abe for helpful advice and encouragement. We also wish to thank Naoto Jinji, Hiroyuki Nishiyama, Toshihiro Oka, Hisayuki Okamoto, Yungho Weng, Yasuhiro Gintani, Yoshitaka Kawagoshi, 75th conference participants of the Japan Society of International Economics (JSIE), seminar participants of 13th Asia Pacific Trade Seminars (APTS), and Fukui Prefectural University for their suggestive comments and discussions. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and thoughtful comments. Yasuyuki Sugiyama gratefully acknowledges the financial support received from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C): No. 15K03440.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasuyuki Sugiyama.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

Appendix 1: Comparative statics of the recycling standard and the excise duty

Appendix 1: Comparative statics of the recycling standard and the excise duty

In the case of the JV, from (15)–(17) and (20)–(22), the impacts of the recycling standard, e, and the excise duty, t, on the output of recycled materials, yJ, their price, rJ, the profit of the JV, πJ, the share of recycler N in the JV, β, and recycler N’s (S’s) profit from the JV, π J N (π J S ) are as follows:

$$ \partial y^{J} /\partial e = \left( {\omega + ew^{*} } \right)/2 > 0, $$
(51)
$$ \partial r^{J} /\partial e = - \left( {a - t - w^{*} } \right)/2e^{2} < 0, $$
(52)
$$ \partial \pi^{J} /\partial e = \omega w^{*} /2 > 0, $$
(53)
$$ \partial \beta /\partial e = 4c^{R} \left( {a - t - w^{*} } \right)\left( {\omega - ec^{R} } \right)/3\omega^{3} > 0, $$
(54)
$$ \partial \pi_{N}^{J} /\partial e = \left\{ {w^{*} \left( {3\omega + 4ec^{R} } \right) + 4c^{R} \left( {\omega - ec^{R} } \right)} \right\}/12 > 0, $$
(55)
$$ \partial \pi_{S}^{J} /\partial e = \left\{ {w^{*} \left( {3\omega - 4ec^{R} } \right) - 4c^{R} \left( {\omega - ec^{R} } \right)} \right\}/12, $$
(56)
$$ \partial y^{J} /\partial t = - e/2 < 0, $$
(57)
$$ \partial r^{J} /\partial t = - 1/2e < 0, $$
(58)
$$ \partial \pi^{J} /\partial t = - \omega /2 < 0, $$
(59)
$$ \partial \beta /\partial t = 4ec^{R} \left( {\omega - ec^{R} } \right)/3\omega^{3} > 0, $$
(60)
$$ \partial \pi_{N}^{J} /\partial t = - \left( {3\omega + 4ec^{R} } \right)/12 < 0, $$
(61)
$$ \partial \pi_{S}^{J} /\partial t = - \left( {3\omega - 4ec^{R} } \right)/12 < 0. $$
(62)

In these equations, only the sign of (56) is undetermined. Here, if we evaluate ∂ π J S /∂ e in (56) at cR = (a − t)/2, we have the following equation:

$$ \partial \pi_{S}^{J} /\partial e|_{{c^{R} = \left( {a - t} \right)/2}} = \left( {a - t - w^{*} } \right)\left\{ {\left( {1 - 2e} \right)w^{*} - \left( {2 - e} \right)\left( {a - t - w^{*} } \right)} \right\}/12. $$
(63)

Therefore, we find that \( \partial \pi_{S}^{J} /\partial e|_{{c^{R} = \left( {a - t} \right)/2}} < 0 \) if e ≥ 1/2. This result may arise when the demand parameter a takes a large value relative to the sum of the excise duty and the price of virgin materials, and the recycling standard is then more than one-half. Even in the case of e < 1/2, it is possible for (63) to be negative as long as a is relatively large.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sugiyama, Y., Koonsed, P. International recycling firm joint ventures and optimal recycling standards. Environ Econ Policy Stud 21, 427–449 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00237-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00237-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation