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

Bianco, Dominique and Salies, Evens (2016): The strong Porter hypothesis in an endogenous growth model with satisficing managers.

Abstract

Few endogenous growth models have focused attention on the strong Porter hypothesis, that stricter environmental policies induce innovations, the benefits of which exceed the costs. A key assumption underlying this hypothesis is that policy strictness pushes firms to overcome some obstacles to profit maximization. This paper incorporates pollution and taxation in the Aghion and Griffith's (2005) model of growth with satisficing managers and non-drastic innovation [in Competition and growth: Reconciling Theory and Evidence, The MIT Press, Ch. 2, pp. 36-38]. Our theoretical results predict the strong Porter hypothesis. Furthermore, they suggest that environmental policy and the level of potential competition in the intermediate inputs sector are complementary. Assuming drastic innovation in the model, however, we predict the weak Porter hypothesis. Other departures from the model's initial assumptions are considered.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Strong Porter hypothesis; Environmental policy; Endogenous growth
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L16 - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics: Industrial Structure and Structural Change ; Industrial Price Indices; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O44 - Environment and Growth

References

Aghion, P., M. Dewatripont, and P. Rey (1997). Corporate governance, competition policy and industrial policy, European Economic Review, 41(3-5), 797-805.

Aghion, P., M. Dewatripont, and P. Rey (1999). Competition, financial discipline and growth, Review of Economic Studies, 66(4), 825-852.

Aghion, P., and R. Griffith (2005). Competition and growth: reconciling theory and evidence. The MIT Press.

Aghion, P., C. Harris, P. Howitt, and J. Vickers (2001). Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation, Review of Economic Studies, 68(3), 467-492.

Aghion, P., and P. Howitt (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction, Econometrica, 60(2), 323-51.

Ambec, S., and P. Barla (2007). Survol des fondements théoriques de l'hypothèse de Porter, L'Actualité Economique, 83(3), 399-413.

Ambec, S., M. Cohen, S. Elgie, and P. Lanoie (2013). The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 2-22.

André, J. (2015). Strategic effects and the Porter hypothesis, MPRA Paper No. 62237.

Feichtinger, G., R. Hartl, P. Kort, and V. Veliov (2005). Environmental policy, the Porter hypothesis and composition of capital: effects of learning and technological progress, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(2), 434-446.

Hart, R. (2004). Growth, environment and innovation - a model with vintages and environmentally oriented research, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48(3), 1078-1098.

Hart, R. (2007). Can environmental policy boost growth?, in Sustainable Resource Use and Economics Dynamics, ed. by S. Smulders, and L. Bretschger, chap. 4, pp. 53-70. Springer.

Jaffe, A., R. Newell, and R. Stavins (2002). Environmental policy and technological change, Environmental & Resource Economics, 22(1), 41-70.

Jaffe, A., and K. Palmer (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(4), 610-619.

Mohr, R. (2002). Technical change, external economies and the Porter hypothesis, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(1), 158-168.

Mohr, R., and S. Saha (2008). Distribution of environmental costs and benefits, additional distortion and the Porter hypothesis, Land Economics, 84(4), 689-700.

Nakada, M. (2004). Does environmental policy necessarily discourage growth?, Journal of Economics, 81(3), 249-275.

Nohria, N., and R. Gulati (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation?, Academy of Management Journal, 29(5), 1245-1264.

Porter, M. (1996). America's green strategy, in Business and the Environment, ed. by R. Welford, and R. Starkey, chap. 4, pp. 33-35. Taylor and Francis.

Porter, M., and C. van der Linde (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.

Ricci, F. (2007a). Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth: a survey of the theory, Ecological Economics, 60(4), 688-699.

Ricci, F. (2007b). Environmental policy and growth when inputs are differentiated in pollution intensity, Environmental & Resource Economics, 38(3), 285-310.

Scharfstein, D. (1988). Product-market competition and managerial slack, RAND Journal of Economics, 19(1), 147-155.

Verdier, T. (1995). Environmental pollution and endogenous growth: a comparaison between emission taxes and technological standards, in Control and Game-Theoretic Models of the Environment, ed. by C. Carraro, and J. Filar, 175-200. Birkhäuser.

Xepapadeas, A., and A. de Zeeuw (1999). Environmental policy and competitiveness: the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37(2), 165-182.