Skip to main content
Log in

How Large are the Welfare Gains from Technological Innovation Induced by Environmental Policies?

  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines whether the welfare gains from technological innovation that reduces future abatement costs are larger or smaller than the “Pigouvian” welfare gains from optimal pollution control. The relative welfare gains from innovation depend on three key factors—the initially optimal level of abatement, the speed at which innovation reduces future abatement costs, and the discount rate. We calculate the welfare gains from innovation under a variety of different scenarios. Mostly they are less than the Pigouvian welfare gains. To be greater, innovation must reduce abatement costs substantially and quickly and the initially optimal abatement level must be fairly modest.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Burtraw, D., A. J. Krupnick, E. Mansur, D. Austin, and D. Farrell. 1998. “The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Air Pollutants Related to Acid Rain.” Contemporary Economic Policy 16: 379-400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, C., D. Burtraw, M. Cropper, and K. Palmer. 2000. “SO2 Control by Electric Utilities: What are the Gains from Trade?” Journal of Political Economy 108: 1292-1326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraro, C., and J. C. Hourcade. 1998. “Climate modeling and Policy Strategies. The Role of Technical Change and Uncertainty.” Energy Economics 20: 463-471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper, M. L., and W. E. Oates. 1990. “Environmental Economics: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Literature XXX: 675-740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowlatabadi, H. 1998. “Sensitivity of Climate Change Mitigation Estimates to Assumptions about Technical Change.” Energy Economics 20: 473-493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, P. G., and L. J. White. 1986. “Innovation in Pollution Control.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13: 18-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C., I. W. H. Parry, and W. A. Pizer. 2002. “Instrument Choice for Environmental Protection when Technological Innovation is Endogenous.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, forthcoming.

  • EIA. 1999. Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (December). U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulder, L. H., and K. Mathai. 2000. “Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3: 1-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulder, L. H., and S. Schneider. 1999. “Induced Technological Change, Crowding Out, and the Attractiveness of CO2 Emissions Abatement.” Resource and Energy Economics 21: 211-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J. K. 1997. “Stratospheric-Ozone Depletion.” In Richard D. Morgenstern (Ed.), Economic Analyses at EPA: Assessing Regulatory Impact. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., R. G. Newell, and R. N. Stavins. 2000. “Technological Change and the Environment.” Forthcoming in Karl-Göran Mäler and Jeffrey Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Science.

  • Jaffe, A. B., and R. N. Stavins. 1995. “Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: S43-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C., K. Krutilla, and R. Boyd. 1996. “Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 95-111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. 1997. Environmental Policy and Technological Change: A Comparison of the Technological Impact of Policy Instruments. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, N. O. 1999. “Policy Instruments and the Diffusion of Pollution Abatement Technology.” Discussion paper, Boston, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneese, A. V., and C. L. Schultz. 1978. Pollution, Prices and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad, C. D. 1996. “Learning and Stock Effects in Environmental Regulation: The Case of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliman, S. R., and R. Prince. 1989. “Firm Incentives to Promote Technological Change in Pollution Control.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17: 247-265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, R. D. (Ed.) 1997. Economic Analyses at EPA: Assessing Regulatory Impact. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muradian, R. 2001. “Ecological Thresholds: A Survey.” Ecological Economics 38: 7-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, R. G., and W. A. Pizer. 2000. “Discounting the Distant Future: How Much do Uncertain Rates Increase Valuations?” Discussion paper 00-45. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, A. L. 1997. “Lead in Gasoline.” In Richard D. Morgenstern (Ed.), Economic Analyses at EPA: Assessing Regulatory Impact. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. 1998. “Modeling Induced Innovation in Climate-Change Policy.” Discussion paper, New Haven, CT: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. 1994. Managing the Global Commons. The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, L. 1976. “Incentive for Innovation as the Basis for Effluent Charge Strategy.” American Economic Review 66: 441-447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, K., W. E. Oates, and P. R. Portney. 1995. “Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 119-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, I. W. H. 1998. “Pollution Regulation and the Efficiency Gains from Technological Innovation.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 14: 229-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, I. W. H. 1995. “Optimal Pollution Taxes and Endogenous Technological Progress.” Resource and Energy Economics 17: 69-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, S. C., and T. J. Teisberg. 1994. “Optimal Carbon Emissions Trajectories when Damages depend on the rate or level of Global Warming.” Climatic Change 28: 289-314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrakis, E., E. Sartzetakis, and A. Xepapedeas. 1999. Environmental Regulation and Market Power. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., and C. van der Linde. 1995. “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 97-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R., and R. N. Stavins. 2000. Public Policies for Environmental Protection. (Second edition). Washingon, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P., and J. P. Weyant. 1999. Discounting and Intergenerational Equity. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigley, T. M. L., R. Richels, and J. Edmonds. 1996. “Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations.” Nature 18: 240-243.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parry, I.W.H., Pizer, W.A. & Fischer, C. How Large are the Welfare Gains from Technological Innovation Induced by Environmental Policies?. Journal of Regulatory Economics 23, 237–255 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023321309988

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023321309988

Keywords

Navigation