Can Environmental Regulations Boost Growth?

  • Rob Hart
Part of the The Economics Of Non-Market Goods And Resources book series (ENGO, volume 10)

I develop a simple new growth model to demonstrate a mechanism through which environmental regulations can boost the growth rate of production towards its socially optimal level, a version of the Porter hypothesis. The mechanism is also likely to operate in much more complex economies, although the net effect of regulations will be uncertain in such economies. In the model, growth is driven by researchers striving for monopoly profits. New technologies must compete with the old for market share. They are not only more productive than the old, but also more environmentally friendly. Introduction of technology standards favours new technologies and therefore increases expected returns to research, hence the quantity of research – and the growth rate – in the economy goes up. This may be a social benefit if knowledge, which drives growth, is underprovided due to spillovers. Key words: endogenous growth, innovation, environment, Schumpeter, Porter hypothesis.

Keywords

Environmental Regulation Social Planner Technology Standard Arbitrage Condition Endogenous Growth Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1992), ‘A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction’, Econometrica, 60:323-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1998), Endogenous Growth Theory. MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1962),‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in R. Nelson, ed., The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bovenberg, A. L. and S. Smulders (1995), ‘Environmental Quality and Pollution-Augmenting Tech-nological Change in a Two-Sector Endogenous Growth Model’, Journal of Public Economics, 57:369-391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunha-e-Sá , M. A. and A. B. Reis (2007), ‘Optimal Timing of Adoption of a Green Technology’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 36:35-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feichtinger, G. R. F. Hartl, P. M. Kort, and V. M. Veliov (2006), ‘Capital Accumulation Under Technological Progress and Learning: A Vintage Capital Approach’, European Journal of Operational Research, 172:293-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grimaud, A. (1999), ‘Pollution Permits and Sustainable Growth in a Schumpeterian Model’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38:249-266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hart, R. (2004),‘Growth, Environment and Innovation — A Model with Production Vintages and Environmentally Oriented Research’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48(3):1078-1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Innes, R. and J. J. Bial (2002), Inducing Innovation in the Environmental Technology of Oligopolis-tic Firms’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(3):265-287.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, C. I. and J. C. Williams (1998), Measuring the Social Return to R&D’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113:1119-1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, C. I. and J. C. Williams (2000), ‘Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D’, Journal of Economic Growth, 5:65-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mohr, R. D. (2002), ‘Technical Change, External economies, and the Porter Hypothesis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(1):158-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Porter, M. E. and C. van der Linde (1995), ‘Toward a new Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4):97-118.Google Scholar
  14. Ricci, F. (2007), ‘Environmental Policy and Growth when Inputs are Differentiated in Pollution Intensity’, Environmental and Resource Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  15. Romer, P. M. (1994),‘The Origins of Endogenous Growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1):3-22.Google Scholar
  16. Salop, S. C. and D. T. Scheffman (1983),‘Raising Rivals’ Costs’, American Economic Review, 73(2):267-271.Google Scholar
  17. Xepapadeas, A. and A. de Zeeuw (1999), ‘Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: the Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-ment, 37(2):165-182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Hart
    • 1
  1. 1.SLUDepartment of EconomicsSweden

Personalised recommendations