Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010

on

  • 603 views

Keynote Speaker and Policy Leaders Panel

Keynote Speaker and Policy Leaders Panel
Mikael Skou Andersen

Statistics

Views

Total Views
603
Views on SlideShare
573
Embed Views
30

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
19
Comments
0

3 Embeds 30

http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca 27
http://sustainableprosperity.ca 2
http://www.laprosperitedurable.ca 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010 Mikael Skou Andersen Presentation - The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness? June 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • The ”Porter hypothesis” at 20 - reflections from Europe
    • Prof Mikael Skou Andersen
  • What do we understand by ”competitiveness” ?
    • “ the degree to which a country can, under free and fair market conditions, produce goods and services which meet the test of international markets, while simultaneously maintaining and expanding the real incomes of its people over the longer term”
    • (OECD, 1993)
  • Porter hypothesis: environmental regulation *) promotes competitiveness
    • New framework for industry rivalry
      • directs attention to resource inefficiencies
      • raises corporate awareness
      • more certainty for green innovators
      • overcomes inertia and fosters creativity
      • improves learning to obtain long-term gains
      • induces change
    • The critics:
    • company level gains are small and cannot offset cost increases
    • cost-benefit analysis required to identify welfare economic advantages
      • *) Scientific American, 1991: Requires incentive-based regulations
  • Green innovation and demand: (Enevoldsen et. al. 2009)
  • Environmental tax reform (ETR) revenue as a share of GDP (1995-2003) Denmark 1,1% Finland 0,6% Germany 0,8% Netherlands 0,5% Sweden 0,9% UK (CCL) 0,1%
  • Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Germany % difference from baseline
  • Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark UK Germany Finland % difference
  • Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Slovenia UK Germany Finland % difference
  • Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Slovenia UK Germany Finland Sweden % difference
  • Effect of ETR on total fuel demand Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. Denmark Netherlands Slovenia UK Germany Finland Sweden % difference
  • Effect of ETR on GHG emissions Denmark Netherlands Slovenia Germany Finland Sweden Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. UK % difference
  • The Effect of ETR on Employment Denmark UK Germany Sweden Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. % difference
  • Effect of ETR on GDP Denmark Netherlands Slovenia UK Germany Finland Sweden Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the counterfactual reference case. Source(s) : CE. % difference
  • Without Revenue Recycling: Effect of ETR on GDP Denmark Netherlands Germany Finland Sweden % difference Note(s) : % difference is the difference between the base case and the no revenue recycling case. Source(s) : CE.
  • Why should we have faith in E3ME results ?
    • Ex-post approach
    • Macro-econometric model based on time-series data
    • Good representation of fuel carriers; high sectoral disaggregation
    • ETR modelled with official figures for revenues, not nominal tax rates
    • Technological progress indicator represents impact via improved R&D
    • Standard impact assessment tool for EU
  • Why energy taxes differ from energy prices ?
    • increased energy prices also have an impact on unit costs via prices on imported raw materials
    • from an increased energy price no revenue can be recycled to lower distortionary taxes
    • psychologically the signalling effect of tax is probably stronger than of price
    • accompanying policy measures differ
  • Kaldor paradox on competitiveness
    • Increase in technological capacity (R&D) and productivity correlate better with increased market shares than unit labour costs
    • If carbon-energy taxes improve R&D and productivity it may help explain how the test of international markets are met
  •  
  • Thanks for your attention