Environmental regulation and the export dynamics of energy technologies

By V. Costantini, F. Crespi. 2008

330 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The pollution haven hypothesis (PHH) affirms that an open market regime will encourage the flow of low-technology polluting industries toward developing countries because of potential comparative advantages related io low environmentai standards. In contrast, the hypothesis suggested by Porter and vari der Linde claims that innovating firms operate in a dynamic competitive situation which allows global diffusion of environmental-friendly technologies. Environmental regulation may represent a relevant mechanism through which technological change is induced. In this way, countries that are subject io more stringent environmental regulations may become net exporters of environmental technologies. This paper provides new evidence ori the evolution of export ftows of environmental technologies across different countries for the energy sector. Advanced economies, particularly the European Union, have increasingly focused on the role of energy policies as tools for sustaining the development path. The Kyoto Protocol commitments, together with growing import dependence ori energy products, have brought attention to the analysis of innovation processes in this specific sector. The analysis uses a gravity model in order io test the determinants and the transmission channels through which environmental technologies for renewable energies and energy efficiency are exported to advanced and developing countries. Our results are consistent with the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis where environmental regulation represents a significant source of comparative advantages. What strongly emerges is that the stringency of environmental regulation supplemented by the strength of the National Innovation System is a crucia1 driver of export performance in the field of energy technologies.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fb23a880282f04b57d954497803f770d45aac49a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Environmental Innovations, Local Networks and Internationalization (2012, result): “Furthermore, although these results refer to a specific region/country, and should thus be replicated for a general validation, we nevertheless note their coherence with other studies at the country level (e.g. Costantini & Crespi, 2008).”
Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries (2017, unknown): “…et al., 2002, among others) and the relevance of regulation-induced EI in driving economic competitiveness (see, for instance, Ambec et al., 2013; Costantini and Crespi, 2008), less attention has been devoted to investigating the actual impact of EI on EP and the mechanisms through which such an…”
Environmental performance, innovation and spillovers. Evidence from a regional NAMEA (2013, unknown): “(5)), the incidence of environmental regulation (proxied by regional public expenditures for environmental protection) on average regional income is used as a proxy (Costantini and Crespi, 2008).”
Revisiting the CO2 emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: the role of Export Quality Improvement (2020, background): “On the other hand, upgrading the quality of exports may directly contribute to lower levels of CO2E as well; particularly via making use of the appropriate technologies to produce the exportables using renewable energy inputs (Costantini and Crespi 2008).”
Beyond inducement in climate change: Does environmental performance spur environmental technologies? (2013, methodology): “It is worth stressing that previous contributes have used emission intensity measures to account for the stringency of regulation when the absence of specific data on regulation required the use of an approximation (e.g. Fredrikkson and Vollebergh, 2009; Costantini and Crespi, 2008).”