Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Technology, price instruments and energy intensity: a study of firms in the manufacturing sector of the Indian economy

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We identify factors influencing energy efficiency and the role of price instruments such as tax and technology use in reducing energy intensity at the firm level. We use data from 2001 to 2015 for India's manufacturing sector from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. Our result strongly suggests that R&D and productivity have a positive impact on achieving energy efficiency. In such a case, at least one-to-one correspondence between the tax and energy intensity may help promote renewable energy use if they are subsidized and allowed to come under the provision of tax credit or tax exemption. Since price instruments do not produce any revenue recycling effect, policymakers can trade-off between increasing corporate tax and generating employment. Therefore, environmental regulations should strictly relate to increase energy efficiency and bring the manufacturing sector out of the productivity dilemma. Also, as evidence from the empirical analysis, there is an urgent need to substitute vintage capital with new capital and better technology. In addition to the existing liberalization policies, the Government must design green domestic policies for the manufacturing sector and map them with FDI and trade. As the polluted firms are energy-intensive, “Performance, Achievement and Trade” (PAT) policies need to focus on these firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Authors’ estimation using data from the CMIE Prowess

Fig. 2

Source: Authors’ estimation using data from the CMIE Prowess

Fig. 3

Source: Authors’ estimation using data from the CMIE Prowess

Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Source: Authors’ estimation using data from the CMIE Prowess

Fig. 6

Source: Authors’ estimation using data from the CMIE Prowess. Note: This is estimated by using the non-linear relationship model with pollution loads. Black dashed lines are OLS coefficients, and the continuous lines show the variation

Fig. 7

Source: Authors’ estimation using data from the CMIE Prowess. Note: Mean values of R&D based on FDI for sample firms from 2001 to 2015

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more information please see https://www.niti.gov.in/verticals/energy.

  2. TFP is estimated using the methodology specified by Levinsohn and Petrin (2003).

References

  • Abraham, M. P., & Kulkarni, A. A. (2020). Price-coupling games and the generation expansion planning problem. Annals of Operations Research, 295(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acheampong, A. O., Amponsah, M., & Boateng, E. (2020). Does financial development mitigate carbon emissions? Evidence from heterogeneous financial economies. Energy Economics, 88, 104768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adom, P. K. (2015). Asymmetric impacts of the determinants of energy intensity in Nigeria. Energy Economics, 49, 570–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnani, B., Gutiérrez Huerta, M. J., & Padilla, M. A. I. (2007). R&D policy in economies with endogenous growth and non-renewable resources. DFAE-II WP Series, 1–40.

  • Amor, S. B., Frini, A., & Reinhardt, G. (2020). Preface: Multiple criteria decision making for sustainable decisions. Annals of Operations Research, 293(2), 401–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagchi, P., & Sahu, S. K. (2020). Energy intensity, productivity and pollution loads: Empirical evidence from manufacturing sector of India. Studies in Microeconomics, 8, 194–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baloch, Z. A., Tan, Q., Iqbal, N., Mohsin, M., Abbas, Q., Iqbal, W., & Chaudhry, I. S. (2020). Trilemma assessment of energy intensity, efficiency, and environmental index: Evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(27), 34337–34347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995). Economic Growth. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bator, F. M. (1957). The simple analytics of welfare maximization. The American Economic Review, 47(1), 22–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. E. (1971). International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica, 38(149), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, N. W., & Gillingham, K. (2015). The microeconomic theory of the rebound effect and its welfare implications. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2(1), 133–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Huang, W., & Zheng, X. (2019). The decline in energy intensity: Does financial development matter? Energy Policy, 134, 110945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, C. J., Costanza, R., Hall, C. A. S., & Kaufmann, R. (1984). Energy and the US economy: A biophysical perspective. Science, 225(4665), 890–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Co, C. Y., & List, J. A. (2004). Is foreign direct investment attracted to ‘knowledge creators’? Applied Economics, 36(11), 1143–1149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. In C. Gopalakrishnan (Ed.), Classic papers in natural resource economics (pp. 87–137). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colapinto, C., Jayaraman, R., Abdelaziz, F. B., & Torre, D. L. (2019). Environmental sustainability and multifaceted development: Multi-criteria decision models with applications. Annals of Operations Research, 293, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coria, J., & Kyriakopoulou, E. (2018). Environmental policy, technology adoption and the size distribution of firms. Energy Economics, 72(1), 470–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa-Campi, M. T., García-Quevedo, J., & Segarra, A. (2015). Energy efficiency determinants: An empirical analysis of Spanish innovative firms. Energy Policy, 83, 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher, E., & Mukhopadhyay, K. (2007). An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: Towards a green Leontief paradox? Environmental and Resource Economics, 36(4), 427–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emir, F., & Bekun, F. V. (2019). Energy intensity, carbon emissions, renewable energy, and economic growth nexus: New insights from Romania. Energy & Environment, 30(3), 427–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, K (2011) The consumer response to gasoline price changes: empirical evidence and policy implications." Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University. http://www.yale. edu/gillingham/Gillingham_Dissertation_Final. pdf.

  • Gillingham, K., Rapson, D., & Wagner, G. (2016). The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global, B. P. (2016). BP statistical review of world energy 2017. BP Global.

  • Gollop, F. M., Fraumeni, B. M., & Jorgenson, D. W. (1987). Productivity and us economic growth. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J. D. (2009). Understanding crude oil prices. The Energy Journal. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol30-No2-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. G. Z., Jefferson, G. H., & Jinchang, Q. (2005). R&D and technology transfer: Firm-level evidence from Chinese industry. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(4), 780–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., & Chen, X. (2020). Domestic R&D activities, technology absorption ability, and energy intensity in China. Energy Policy, 138, 111184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Hao, Yu., & Lei, H. (2018). Indigenous versus foreign innovation and energy intensity in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1721–1729.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA, IEA (2015) India energy outlook." US Energy Information.

  • Jevons, W. S. (1865). The coal question: Can Britain survive? In A. W. Fluxed, & A. M. Kelley (Eds.), The coal question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. London: Macmillan & Co.

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (1998). Growth: Energy, the environment, and economic growth (Vol. 2). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, K. L. (2010). The politics of power: Electricity reform in India. Energy Policy, 38(1), 503–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khazzoom, J. D. (1980). Economic implications of mandated efficiency in standards for household appliances. The Energy Journal. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol1-No4-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker, R., & Ng, P. (2005). Inequality constrained quantile regression. Sankhyā: the Indian Journal of Statistics, 67(1), 418–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kummel, R., Lindenberger, D., & Eichhorn, W. (2000). The productive power of energy and economic evolution. Indian Journal of Applied Economics, 8(2), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kummel, R., Strassl, W., Gossner, A., & Eichhorn, W. (1985). Technical progress and energy dependent production functions. Zeitschriftfür Nationalokonomie, 45(3), 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinsohn, J., & Petrin, A. (2003). Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 317–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, B., & Liu, H. (2015). A study on the energy rebound effect of China’s residential building energy efficiency. Energy and Buildings, 86, 608–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., & Yeh, R.-S. (2005). The interdependence between FDI and R&D: An application of an endogenous switching model to Taiwan’s electronics industry. Applied Economics, 37(15), 1789–1799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. London: Joseph Johnson.

  • Mardones, C., & Flores, B. (2018). Effectiveness of a CO2 tax on industrial emissions. Energy Economics, 71(1), 370–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medema, S. G. (2017). Exceptional and unimportant’? The rise, fall, and rebirth of externalities in economic analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3057411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, JS (1848) Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy. Book IV, Chapter VI ‘of the Stationary State’.

  • Montalbano, P., & Nenci, S. (2019). Energy efficiency, productivity and exporting: Firm-level evidence in Latin America. Energy Economics, 79, 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (2010). Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(26), 11721–11726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (2011). The architecture of climate economics: Designing a global agreement on global warming. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(1), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oak, H, and S Bansal S (2017) Perform-Achieve-Trade Policy: A Case Study of Cement Industry for Energy Efficiency. No. 17–05. Centre for International Trade and Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

  • Oates, W. E. (1995). Green taxes: Can we protect the environment and improve the tax system at the same time? Southern Economic Journal, 61(1), 915–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead, S. M., & Stavins, R. N. (2006). An international policy architecture for the post-Kyoto era. American Economic Review, 96(2), 35–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouardighi, F. E., Khmelnitsky, E., & Leandri, M. (2020). Production-based pollution versus deforestation: Optimal policy with state-independent and-dependent environmental absorption efficiency restoration process. Annals of Operations Research, 292, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (2008). Climate change 2007. Synthesis paper. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment paper. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, X., Uddin, M. K., Han, C., & Pan, X. (2019). Dynamics of financial development, trade openness, technological innovation and energy intensity: Evidence from Bangladesh. Energy, 171(1), 456–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, K. H. (2003). Patterns and strategies of foreign direct investment: The case of Japanese firms. Applied Economics, 35(16), 1739–1746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S., & Liddle, B. (2016). Energy efficiency in the manufacturing sector of the OECD: Analysis of price elasticities. Energy Economics, 58, 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A (2011) The economics of welfare. Library of Economics and Liberty." London: Macmillan and Co [4. ª edicao]. Consultado a 20, no. 09 (1932).

  • Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare Macmillan and Co. United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, P. M., & Schiersch, A. (2017). CO2 emission intensity and exporting: Evidence from firm-level data. European Economic Review, 98, 373–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahu, S., & Narayanan, K. (2010). Determinants of energy intensity in Indian manufacturing industries: A firm level analysis. MPRA Paper, 21646, 1–26.

  • Sahu, S. K., & Sharma, H. (2016). Productivity, energy intensity and output: A unit level analysis of the Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 14(2), 283–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samargandi, N. (2019). Energy intensity and its determinants in OPEC countries. Energy, 186, 115803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scitovsky, T. (1954). Two concepts of external economies. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, X., & Lin, B. (2020). Policy incentives, R&D investment, and the energy intensity of China’s manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, X., Lin, B., & Wei, Wu. (2019). R&D efforts, total factor productivity, and the energy intensity in China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55(11), 2566–2588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, H. (1901) The principles of political economy. Vol. 132. Kraus reprint.

  • Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (1974). Growth with exhaustible natural resources: Efficient and optimal growth paths. The Review of Economic Studies, 41, 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajudeen, I. A., Wossink, A., & Banerjee, P. (2018). How significant is energy efficiency to mitigate CO2 emissions? Evidence from OECD countries. Energy Economics, 72, 200–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, E., Zhang, J., & Haider, Z. (2015). Firm productivity, pollution, and output: Theory and empirical evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(22), 18040–18046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Chen, Z., Xingyi, Wu., & Nie, X. (2019). Can a carbon trading system promote the transformation of a low-carbon economy under the framework of the porter hypothesis? —Empirical analysis based on the PSM-DID method. Energy Policy, 129, 930–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N., & Zhang, W. (2020). Can sustainable operations achieve economic benefit and energy saving for manufacturing industries in China? Annals of Operations Research, 290(1), 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments and suggestions. The first author gratefully acknowledge the support from Initiative for Sustainable Energy Policy (ISEP) and ICSR IIT Madras, Chennai on initiating this research. Usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

    Santosh Kumar Sahu & Prantik Bagchi

  2. EMLYON Business School, Écully, France

    Ajay Kumar

  3. Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK

    Kim Hua Tan

Authors
  1. Santosh Kumar Sahu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prantik Bagchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ajay Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kim Hua Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ajay Kumar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table

Table 6 Correlation matrix
Full size table

6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahu, S.K., Bagchi, P., Kumar, A. et al. Technology, price instruments and energy intensity: a study of firms in the manufacturing sector of the Indian economy. Ann Oper Res 313, 319–339 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04295-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04295-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation