Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 246-259

  Greaker, Mads ^a   Rosendahl, Knut Einar ^a  

^a STATISTICS NORWAY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Environmental innovations; Porter hypothesis; Strategic environmental policy

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING; POLLUTION; RIVERS; TECHNOLOGY;

ABATEMENT COSTS; ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES; ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES; EXPORT INDUSTRIES; EXPORT SECTORS; INDUSTRIAL POLICIES; POINT OF DEPARTURES; POLLUTION ABATEMENTS; PORTER HYPOTHESIS; STAGE GAMES; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; UPSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES;

PUBLIC POLICY;

ABATEMENT COST; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPORT; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INDUSTRIAL POLICY; POLLUTION CONTROL; POLLUTION POLICY;

EID: 56549092149     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alfsen K.H., and Randers J. How can Norway become a climate-friendly society?. World Econ. 8 (2007) 75-105
2. Alstom Power, 2007. Clean power today, information sheet 〈www.power.alstom.com/home/about_us/clean_power_today〉.
3. D'Aspremont C., and Jacquemin A. Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. Amer. Econ. Rev. 78 5 (1988) 1133-1137
4. Baldwin R.E., and Krugman P.R. Market access and international competition: a simulation study of the 16K random access memories. In: Feenstra R.C. (Ed). Empirical Methods for International Trade (1988), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 171-198
5. Barrett S. Strategic environmental policy and international trade. J. Public Econ. 54 (1994) 325-338
6. Brander J., and Krugman P.R. A reciprocal dumping model of international trade. J. Int. Econ. 15 (1983) 313-321
7. 2 cap and trade program for power plants in the United States, Discussion Paper 03-15, Resources for the Future, 2003.
8. David M., and Sinclair-Desgagné B. Environmental regulation and the eco-industry. J. Regul. Econ. 28 (2005) 141-155
9. Downing P.B., and White L.J. Innovation in pollution control. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 13 (1986) 18-29
10. EU, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, European Commission, Brussels, 2003.
11. EU, Climate Change: European Leadership and the Role of the European Parliament, Speech/07/199, Stavros Dimas, Member of the European Commission, responsible for environment, 2007 〈www.europa.eu〉.
12. 2 capture in the electricity sector, OECD/IEA, 2004.
13. Greaker M. Strategic environmental policy: eco-dumping or a green strategy?. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45 (2003) 692-707
14. Greaker M. Spillovers in the development of new, pollution abatement technology: a new look at the Porter hypothesis. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 52 (2006) 411-420
15. M. Greaker, K.E. Rosendahl, Strategic climate policy in small open economies, Discussion Papers No. 448, Statistics Norway, 2006.
16. S. Jespersen, Den Erhvervspolitiske VæRdi Af Støtten til den Danske Vindmølleindustri, Arbejdspapir 2002:3, Det Økonomiske Råd, Denmark, 2002.
17. Jung C., Krutilla K., and Boyd R. Incentives for advanced pollution abatement technology at the industry level: an evaluation of policy alternatives. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 (1996) 95-111
18. Kamien M.I., Muller E., and Zang I. Research joint ventures and R&D cartels. Amer. Econ. Rev. 82 5 (1992) 1293-1305
19. Keats Martinez K., and Neuhoff K. Allocation of carbon emission certificates in the power sector: how generators profit from grandfathered rights. Climate Policy 5 (2005) 61-78
20. R. Kemp, Technology and Environmental Policy: Innovation Effects of Past Policies and Suggestions for Improvement in Innovation and the Environment, OECD, Paris, 2000.
21. Klaassen G., Miketaa A., Larsenb K., and Sundqvist T. The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom. Ecolog. Econ. 54 (2005) 227-240
22. Leahy D., and Neary J.P. Public policy towards R&D in oligopolistic industries. Amer. Econ. Rev. 87 (1997) 642-662
23. Lund D. Can a small nation gain from a domestic carbon tax? The case with R&D expenditures. Scand. J. Econ. 96 (1994) 365-379
24. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, License of Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Technology, 2007 〈www.mhi-ir.jp/english/new/〉.
25. OECD, Workshop on Innovation and the Environment: Rapporteur's Report in Innovation and the Environment, OECD, Paris, 2000.
26. 2 Capture and Storage (2004), IEA Publications
27. 2 abatement policy with learning-by-doing in renewable energy. Resource Energy Econ. 23 (2001) 297-325
28. Rauscher M. On ecological dumping. Oxford Econ. Pap. 46 (1994) 822-840
29. Requate T., and Unold W. Environmental policy incentives to adopt advanced abatement technology: Will the true ranking please stand up?. Europ. Econ. Rev. 47 (2003) 125-146
30. Romer P.M. Endogenous technological change. J. Polit. Economy 98 5 (1990) 71-102
31. Salant S., Switzer S., and Reynolds R. Losses due to merger: the effects of an exogenous change in industry structure on Cournot-Nash equilibrium. Quart. J. Econ. 48 (1983) 185-200
32. Tirole J. The Theory of Industrial Organization (1995), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
33. Ulph A. Environmental policy and international trade when governments and producers act strategically. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 (1996) 265-281
34. Ulph D. Strategic innovation and strategic environmental policy. In: Carraro C. (Ed). Trade, Innovation, Environment (1994), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
35. Venables A.J. Trade policy under imperfect competition: a numerical assessment. In: Krugman P., and Smith A. (Eds). Empirical Studies of Strategic Trade Policy (1994), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
36. Vives X. Oligopoly Pricing (1999), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA