Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Policy and Technological Change

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between technological changeand environmental policy has receivedincreasing attention from scholars and policymakers alike over the past ten years. This ispartly because the environmental impacts ofsocial activity are significantly affected bytechnological change, and partly becauseenvironmental policy interventions themselvescreate new constraints and incentives thataffect the process of technologicaldevelopments. Our central purpose in thisarticle is to provide environmental economistswith a useful guide to research ontechnological change and the analytical toolsthat can be used to explore further theinteraction between technology and theenvironment. In Part 1 of the article, weprovide an overview of analytical frameworksfor investigating the economics oftechnological change, highlighting key issuesfor the researcher. In Part 2, we turn ourattention to theoretical analysis of theeffects of environmental policy ontechnological change, and in Part 3, we focuson issues related to the empirical analysis oftechnology innovation and diffusion. Finally,we conclude in Part 4 with some additionalsuggestions for research.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962), ‘EconomicWelfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in R. Nelson, ed., The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, S. E. and R. Halvorsen (1984), ‘A New Hedonic Technique for Estimating Attribute Demand: An Application to the Demand for Automobile Fuel Efficiency’, Review of Economics and Statistics 66, 417–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellas, A. S. (1998), ‘Empirical Evidence of Advances in Scrubber Technology’, Resource and Energy Economics 20, 327–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, E. and L. Bui (2001), ‘Environmental Regulation and Productivity: Evidence from Oil Refineries’, Review of Economics and Statistics 83(3), 498–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S., S. Kortum and A. Pakes (1996), ‘Environmental Change and Hedonic Cost Functions for Automobiles’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 93, 12731–12738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglaiser, G., J. K. Horowitz and J. Quiggin (1995), ‘Dynamic Pollution Regulation’, Journal of Regulatory Economics 8, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bound, J., C. Cummins, Z. Griliches, B. Hall and A. Jaffe (1984), ‘Who Does R&D and Who Patents?’, in Z. Griliches, ed., R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, G. A. and S. H. Karlson (1993), ‘The Impact of Energy Prices on Technology Choice in the United States Steel Industry’, The Energy Journal 14(2), 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, G. and J. McClelland (1999), ‘The Impact of Environmental Constraints on Productivity Improvement and Energy Efficiency an Integrated Paper and Steel Plants’, The Journal of Economics and Environmental Management 38, 121–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, G. and J. Pang (2000), ‘Estimating the Linkage between Energy Efficiency and Productivity’, Energy Policy 28, 289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadot, O. and B. Sinclair-Desgagne (1996), ‘Innovation Under the Threat of Stricter Environmental Standards’, in C. Carraro et al., eds., Environmental Policy and Market Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 131–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraro, C. and A. Soubeyran (1996), ‘Environmental Policy and the Choice of Production Technology’, in C. Carraro et al., eds., Environmental Policy and Market Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 151–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraro, C. and D. Siniscalaco (1994), ‘Environmental Policy Reconsidered: The Role of Technology Innovation’, European Economic Review 38, 545–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, K (2000), ‘Energy Tax and Competition in Energy Efficiency: The Case of Consumer Durables’, Environmental and Resource Economics 15, 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. (1966), ‘The mechanization of reaping in the ante-bellum Midwest’, in H. Rosovsky, ed., Industrialization in Two Systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 3–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. (1969), ‘A Contribution to the Theory of Diffusion’, mimeo. Forthcoming as Chapters 1–3 of David, P., Behind the Diffusion Curve. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P., B. Hall and A. Toole (2000), ‘Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence’, Research Policy 29, 497–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCanio, S. J. (1998), ‘The Efficiency Paradox: Bureaucratic and Organizational Barriers to Profitable Energy-Saving Investments’, Energy Policy 26, 441–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denicolo, V. (1999), ‘Pollution-reducing Innovations Under Taxes or Permits’, Oxford Economic Papers 51, 184–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, P. B. and L. J. White (1986), ‘Innovation in Pollution Control’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13, 18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, R. (1995), ‘Technology Change and Technology Strategy’, in J. Behrman and T.N. Srinivasan, eds., Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. 3A. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C., I. W. H. Parry and W. A. Pizer (1998), ‘Instrument Choice for Environmental Protection When Technological Innovation is Endogenous’, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 99-04. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. M. and R. H. Haveman (1972), ‘Clean Rhetoric and Dirty Water’, Public Interest 28, 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A. (1995), ‘Markets for Technology: Knowledge, Innovation and Appropriability’, in P. Stoneman, ed., Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 90–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A. (2000), ‘Models of Technology Diffusion’, Research Policy 29, 603–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, P. K. (1998), ‘The Effects of the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards in the U.S.’, Journal of Industrial Economics 46, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollop, F. M. and M. J. Roberts (1983), ‘Environmental Regulations and Productivity Growth: The Case of Fossil-Fueled Electric Power Generation’, Journal of Political Economy 91, 654–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, A. C. (1983), ‘Willingness to Pay for Car Efficiency: A Hedonic Price Approach’, Journal of Transport Economics 17, 247–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulder, L. H. and K. Mathai (2000), ‘Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulder, L. H. and S. L. Schneider (1999), ‘Induced Technological Change and the Attractiveness of CO2 Emissions Abatement Policies’, Resource and Energy Economics 21, 211–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W. B. and R. J. Shadbegian (1995), ‘Pollution Abatement Costs, Regulation, and Plant-Level Productivity’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4994.

  • Gray, W. B. and R. J. Shadbegian (1998), ‘Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice’, Journal of Industrial Economics 46, 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, D. L. (1990), ‘CAFE or Price?: An Analysis of the Effects of Federal Fuel Economy Regulations and Gasoline Price on New Car MPG, 1978–89’, The Energy Journal 11(3), 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greening, L. A., A. H. Sanstad and J. E. McMahon (1997), ‘Effects of Appliance Standards on Product Price and Attributes: An Hedonic Pricing Model’, Journal of Regulatory Economics 11, 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenstone, M. (1998), ‘The Marginal Effects of Environmental Regulations of the Manufacturing Sector: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments’, mimeo Princeton University.

  • Griliches, Z. (1957), ‘Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technical Change’, Econometrica 48, 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1979), ‘Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth’, Bell Journal of Economics 10, 92–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1984), R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1992), ‘The Search for R&D Spillovers’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94, S29–S47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1998), R&D and Productivity, The Econometric Evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. and E. Helpman (1994), ‘Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. W. and R. N. Stavins (1991), ‘Incentive-based Environmental Regulation: a New Era from an Old Idea?’, Ecology Law Quarterly 18, 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., A. Jaffe and M. Trajtenberg (2000), ‘Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7741.

  • Hassett, K. A. and G. E. Metcalf (1995), ‘Energy Tax Credits and Residential Conservation Investment: Evidence form Panel Data’, Journal of Public Economics 57, 201–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassett, K. A. and G. E. Metcalf (1996), ‘Can Irreversibility Explain the Slow Diffusion of Energy Saving Technologies?’, Energy Policy 24, 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (1979), ‘Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables’, Bell Journal of Economics 10, 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. (1932), The Theory of Wages London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockenstein, J. B., R. N. Stavins and B. W. Whitehead (1997), ‘Creating the Next Generation of Market-Based Environmental Tools’, Environment 39(4), 12–20, 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, B. R. and J. Tirole (1987), ‘The Theory of the Firm’, in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 61–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R. B., B. M. Haddad, and B. Paton (2000), ‘The Economics of Energy Efficiency: Insights from Voluntary Participation Programs’, Energy Policy 28, 477–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interlaboratory Working Group (1997), Scenarios of Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond Washington: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1986), ‘Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits and Market Value’, American Economic Review 76, 984–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1998), ‘The Importance of ‘spillovers’ in the Policy Mission of the Advanced Technology Program’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Summer, 11–19.

  • Jaffe, A. B. (2000), ‘The U.S. Patent System in Transition: Policy Innovation and the Innovation Process’, Research Policy 29, 531–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. and K. Palmer (1997), ‘Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study’, Review of Economics and Statistics 79, 610–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. and R. N. Stavins (1994), ‘The Energy Paradox and the Diffusion of Conservation Technology’, Resource and Energy Economics 16, 91–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. and R. N. Stavins (1995), ‘Dynamic Incentives of Environmental Regulations: The Effects of Alternative Policy Instruments on Technology Diffusion’, Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 29, S43–S63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., S. Peterson, P. Portney and R. N. Stavins (1995), ‘Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?’, Journal of Economic Literature 33, 132–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. (1990), ‘Productivity and Economic Growth’, in E. Berndt and J. Triplett, eds., Fifty Years of Economic Measurement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. and K. J. Stiroh (2000), ‘Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 125–211.

  • Jung, C. H., K. Krutilla and R. Boyd (1996), ‘Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 95–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karshenas, M. and P. Stoneman (1995), ‘Technological Diffusion’, in P. Stoneman, ed., Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsoulacos, Y. and A. Xepapadeas (1996), ‘Environmental Innovation, Spillovers and Optimal Policy Rules’, in C. Carraro et al., eds., Environmental Policy and Market Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 143–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, René (1997), Environmental Policy and Technical Change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, René (1998), ‘The Diffusion of Biological Waste-water Treatment Plants in the Dutch Food and Beverage Industry’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12, 113–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. and L. Soete (1990), ‘Inside the “Green Box”: on the Economics of Technological Change and the Environment’, in Freeman, C. and L. Soete, eds., New Explorations in the Economics of Technological Change. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, N. O. (1999), ‘Policy Instruments and the Diffusion of Pollution Abatement Technology’, mimeo, Harvard University.

  • Keohane, N. O. (2001), ‘Essays in the Economics of Environmental Policy’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

  • Kerr, S. and R. G. Newell (2000), ‘Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown’, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 01-14, (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneese, A. and C. Schultze (1975), Pollution, Prices, and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad, C. D. and M. H. L. Turnovsky (1998), ‘Cost Functions and Nonlinear Prices: Estimating a Technology with Quality-Differentiated Inputs’, Review of Economics & Statistics 80, 444–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J. and J. Tirole (1996), ‘Pollution Permits and Compliance Strategies’, Journal of Public Economics 62, 85–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landjouw, J. O. and A. Mody (1996), ‘Innovation and the International Diffusion of Environmentally Responsive Technology’, Research Policy 25, 549–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S., S. Levin and J. Meisel (1987), ‘A Dynamic Analysis of the Adoption of a New Technology: The Case of Optical Scanners’, Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magat, W. A. (1978), ‘Pollution Control and Technological Advance: A Dynamic Model of the Firm’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 5, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magat, W. A. (1979), ‘The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Innovation’, Law and Contemporary Problems 43, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, M. T. and G. L. Brady (1988), ‘Capital Turnover and Marketable Pollution Rights’, Journal of Law and Economics 31, 203–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malueg, D. A. (1989), ‘Emission Credit Trading and the Incentive to Adopt New Pollution Abatement Technology’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 16, 52–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1968), Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1989), ‘Industrial robots in Japan and the USA’, Research Policy 18, 183–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, A. (1991), ‘Firm Incentives to Promote Technological Change in Pollution Control: Comment’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21, 297–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. and J. Scott (2000), ‘The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation’, Research Policy 29, 437–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCubbins, M. D., R. G. Noll and B. R. Weingast (1989), ‘Structure and Process, Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies’, Virginia Law Review 75, 431–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, G. E. and K. A. Hassett (1999), ‘Measuring the Energy Savings from Home Improvement Investments: Evidence from Monthly Billing Data’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 516–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliman, S. R. and R. Prince (1989), ‘Firm Incentives to Promote Technological Change in Pollution Control’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17, 247–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliman, S. R. and R. Prince (1992), ‘Firm Incentives to Promote Technological Change in Pollution Control: Reply’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 292–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montero, J. P. (2000), ‘Market Structure and Environmental Innovation’, mimeo Catholic University of Chile.

  • National Science Board (1998), Science and Engineering Indicators — 1998. Washington: National Science Foundation, available online at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind98/frames.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., T. Tietenberg and M. Donihue (1993), ‘Differential Environmental Regulation: Effects on Electric Utility Capital Turnover and Emissions’, Review of Economics and Statistics 75, 368–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, R. G., A. B. Jaffe and R. N. Stavins (1999), ‘The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 941–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (2000), ‘Modeling Induced Innovation in Climate-Change Policy’, mimeo, Yale University.

  • Oates, W. E., K. Palmer and P. R. Portney (1993), ‘Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness: Thinking About the Porter Hypothesis’, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 94-02, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohta, M. and Z. Griliches (1976), ‘Automobile prices revisited: Extensions of the hedonic hypothesis’, in N.E. Terleckyj, ed., Household Production and Consumption. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohta, M. and Z. Griliches (1986), ‘Automobile Prices and Quality: Did the Gasoline Price Increases Change Consumer Tastes in the U.S.?’, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 4, 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2000), Basic Science and Technology Statistics: 1999 Edition. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, L. (1976), ‘Incentive for Innovation as the Basis for Effluent Charge Strategy’, American Economic Review 66, 441–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oster, S. (1982), ‘The Diffusion of Innovation Among Steel Firms: The Basic Oxygen Furnace’, The Bell Journal of Economics 13, 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A., S. Berry and J. A. Levinsohn (1993), ‘Applications and Limitations of Some Recent Advances in Empirical Industrial Organization: Prices Indexes and the Analysis of Environmental Change’, American Economic Review 83, 240–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, K., W. E. Oates and P. R. Portney (1995), ‘Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, I. W. H. (1998), ‘Pollution Regulation and the Efficiency Gains from Technological Innovation’, Journal of Regulatory Economics 14, 229–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck, R. (1991), ‘Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment’, Journal of Economic Literature 29, 1110–1152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizer, W. A., W. Harrington, R. J. Kopp, R. D. Morgenstern and J. Shih (2001), ‘Technology Adoption and Aggregate Energy Efficiency’, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 01-21. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp, D. (2001a), ‘Induced Innovation and Energy Prices’, American Economic Review, forthcoming.

  • Popp, D. (2001b), ‘The Effect of New Technology on Energy Consumption’, Resource and Energy Economics 23(4), 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. and C. van der Linde (1995), ‘Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, A. and J. Outlaw (1995), ‘What We Know About Technological Innovation to Achieve Environmental Compliance: Policy Issues for an Industrializing Animal Agriculture Sector’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77, 1237–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinganum, J. (1989), ‘The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development and Diffusion’, in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 850–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, F. L. (2000), Down to Earth: Applying Business Principles to Environmental Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reppelin-Hill, V. (1999), ‘Trade and Environment: An Empirical Analysis of the Technology Effect in the Steel Industry’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38, 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Requate, T. (1998), ‘Incentives to Innovate under Emission Taxes and Tradeable Permits’, European Journal of Political Economy 14, 139–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1994), ‘The Origins of Endogenous Growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. and P. Joskow (1990), ‘The Diffusion of New Technologies: Evidence from the Electric Utility Industry’, Rand Journal of Economics 21, 354–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. (1990), ‘Capital Budgeting Practices of Twelve Large Manufacturers’, in P. Cooley, ed., Advances in Business Financial Management. Chicago: Dryden Press, pp. 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruderman, H., M. D. Levine and J. E. McMahon (1987), ‘The Behavior of the Market for Energy Efficiency in Residential Appliances Including Heating and Cooling Equipment’, The Energy Journal 8, 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanstad, A., C. Blumstein and S. Stoft (1995), ‘How High are Option Values in Energy-efficiency Investments’, Energy Policy 23, 739–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. (1986), Innovation and Growth, Schumpeterian Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. and D. Harhoff (2000), ‘Technology Policy for a World of Skew-Distributed Outcomes’, Research Policy 29, 559–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F., D. Harhoff and J. Kukies (2000), ‘Uncertainty and the Size Distribution of Rewards from Technological Innovation’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10, 175–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee, R. (1994), ‘The Costs of Environmental Protection’, in M.B. Kotowski, ed., Balancing Economic Growth and Environmental Goals. Washington, D.C.: American Council for Capital Formation, Center for Policy Research, pp. 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shama, A. (1983), ‘Energy Conservation in U.S. Buildings, Solving the High Potential/Low Adoption Paradox from a Behavioral Perspective’, Energy Policy 11, 148–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha, R. M. and B. K. Karmacharya (1998), ‘Testing of Barriers to the Adoption of Energy-Efficient Lamps in Nepal’, The Journal of Energy and Development 23(1), 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947), Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, A. M. (1984), ‘Cost Reduction, Competition and Industry Performance’, Econometrica 52(1), 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavins, R. N. (2001), ‘Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments’, in K. Mäler and J. Vincent, eds., Handbook of Environmental Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, R. B. (1981), ‘Regulation, Innovation, and Administrative Law: A Conceptual Framework’, California Law Review 69, 1256–1270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoneman, P. (1983), The Economic Analysis of Technological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. (1998), Technology and Market Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulph, D. (1998), ‘Environmental Policy and Technological Innovation’, forthcoming in C. Carraro and D. Siniscalaco, eds., Frontiers of Environmental Economics Cheltenhsam: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, M. L. (1974), ‘Prices vs. Quantities’, Review of Economic Studies 41, 477–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, J. (1984), ‘Automobile Fuel Efficiency: Measurement and Explanation’, Economic Inquiry 22, 375–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G., Y. M. Kaniovski and G. Dosi (2000), ‘Modeling Industrial Dynamics with Innovative Entrants’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 11, 255–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerbe, R. O. (1970), ‘Theoretical Efficiency in Pollution Control’, Western Economic Journal 8, 364–376.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Brandeis University and National Bureau of Economic Research, USA

    Adam B. Jaffe

  2. Resources for the Future, USA

    Richard G. Newell

  3. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and Resources for the Future, USA

    Robert N. Stavins

Authors
  1. Adam B. Jaffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard G. Newell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert N. Stavins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G. & Stavins, R.N. Environmental Policy and Technological Change. Environ Resource Econ 22, 41–70 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015519401088

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015519401088

Search

Navigation