IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fce/doctra/1601.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The strong Porter Hypothesis in an endogenous growth model with satisficing managers

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Bianco

    (Université de Bologne, LEDI (CNRS))

  • Evens Salies

    (OFCE-SciencesPo)

Abstract

Few endogenous growth models have focused attention on the strong Porter hypothesis, that stricter environmental policies induce innovations, the benefits ofwhich exceed the costs. A key assumption in this hypothesis is that policy strictness pushes rms to overcome some obstacles to profit maximization. We model this hypothesis by incorporating pollution and taxation in the Aghion and Grifith (2005) analysis of growth with satisficing managers. Our theoretical results predict the strong Porter hypothesis. Moreover, they suggest that the stringency of environmental policy should adjust to changes in the level of potential competition in the intermediate inputs sector

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2016. "The strong Porter Hypothesis in an endogenous growth model with satisficing managers," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2016-01, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    • Handle: RePEc:fce:doctra:1601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/pdf/dtravail/WP2016-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Rey, 1999. "Competition, Financial Discipline and Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(4), pages 825-852.
    4. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Feichtinger, Gustav & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Veliov, Vladimir M., 2005. "Environmental policy, the porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technological progress," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 434-446, September.
    6. Ricci, Francesco, 2007. "Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth: A survey of the theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 688-699, February.
    7. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    8. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2007. "Survol des fondements théoriques de l’hypothèse de Porter," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 83(3), pages 399-413, septembre.
    9. Aghion, Ph. & Dewatripont, M. & Rey, P., 1997. "Corporate governance, competition policy and industrial policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 797-805, April.
    10. David Scharfstein, 1988. "Product-Market Competition and Managerial Slack," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 147-155, Spring.
    11. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    12. Francesco Ricci, 2007. "Environmental policy and growth when inputs are differentiated in pollution intensity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 285-310, November.
    13. Hart, Rob, 2004. "Growth, environment and innovation--a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1078-1098, November.
    14. Mohr, Robert D., 2002. "Technical Change, External Economies, and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 158-168, January.
    15. Minoru Nakada, 2004. "Does Environmental Policy Necessarily Discourage Growth?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 249-275, March.
    16. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    17. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    18. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    19. Robert D. Mohr & Shrawantee Saha, 2008. "Distribution of Environmental Costs and Benefits, Additional Distortions, and the Porter Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 689-700.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shuai Guan & Jinquan Liu & Yongfu Liu & Mingze Du, 2022. "The Nonlinear Influence of Environmental Regulation on the Transformation and Upgrading of Industrial Structure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Dominique Bianco, 2022. "Does entrepreneurial behaviour matter for the strong Porter hypothesis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(2), pages 867-876.
    3. Dominique Bianco, 2017. "Environmental Policy in an Endogenous Growth Model with Expanding Variety," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(6), pages 1013-1028.
    4. Hafele, Jakob & Kuhls, Sonia, 2022. "Trade-off or tension: Can carbon be priced without risking economic competitiveness?," ZOE Discussion Papers 9, ZOE. institute for future-fit economies, Bonn.
    5. Afonso, Oscar, 2023. "Fiscal and monetary effects on environmental quality, growth, and welfare," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 202-219.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/vetkngao585gaehs52f2n4fkt is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Post-Print hal-02177939, HAL.
    4. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/c6vaci757938qr0fmnuq9kd0e is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/c6vaci757938qr0fmnuq9kd0e is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Dominique Bianco, 2022. "Does entrepreneurial behaviour matter for the strong Porter hypothesis?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 42(2), pages 867-876.
    7. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    8. Qiu, Larry D. & Zhou, Mohan & Wei, Xu, 2018. "Regulation, innovation, and firm selection: The porter hypothesis under monopolistic competition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 638-658.
    9. Sen, Suphi, 2015. "Corporate governance, environmental regulations, and technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 36-61.
    10. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    12. Ricci, Francesco, 2007. "Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth: A survey of the theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 688-699, February.
    13. Afonso, Oscar, 2023. "Fiscal and monetary effects on environmental quality, growth, and welfare," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 202-219.
    14. Tilmann Rave & Ursula Triebswetter, 2006. "Economic impacts of environmental regulations," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 30.
    15. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Martin, Ralf & Mohnen, Myra, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60501, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Carraro, Carlo & De Cian, Enrica & Nicita, Lea & Massetti, Emanuele & Verdolini, Elena, 2010. "Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 4(2), pages 163-219, October.
    17. Earnhart, Dietrich & Germeshausen, Robert & von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2022. "Effects of information-based regulation on financial outcomes: Evidence from the European Union's public emission registry," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Amann, Juergen & Cantore, Nicola & Calí, Massimiliano & Todorov, Valentin & Cheng, Charles Fang Chin, 2021. "Switching it up: The effect of energy price reforms in Oman," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    19. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Francesco Ricci, 2007. "Environmental policy and growth when inputs are differentiated in pollution intensity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 285-310, November.
    21. He, Wenjian & Cheng, Yu & Lin, Ying & Zhang, Hongxiao, 2022. "Microeconomic effects of designating National Forest Cities: Evidence from China's publicly traded manufacturing companies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    22. Dominique Bianco, 2017. "Environmental Policy in an Endogenous Growth Model with Expanding Variety," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(6), pages 1013-1028.
    23. Fu, Ke & Li, Yanzhi & Mao, Huiqiang & Miao, Zhaowei, 2023. "Firms’ production and green technology strategies: The role of emission asymmetry and carbon taxes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1100-1112.
    24. Hart, Rob, 2004. "Growth, environment and innovation--a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1078-1098, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Strong Porter Hypothesis; Environmental Policy; Endogenous Growth;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • E03 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Macroeconomics
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O41 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
    • O44 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Environment and Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fce:doctra:1601. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Francesco Saraceno (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ofcspfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.