pollution abatement and productivity growth: evidence from germany, japan, the netherlands, and the...
TRANSCRIPT
Environ Resource Econ (2009) 44:11–28
DOI 10.1007/s10640-008-9256-2
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth: Evidence
from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United
States
Deborah Vaughn Aiken · Rolf Färe ·
Shawna Grosskopf · Carl A. Pasurka Jr.
Received: 19 October 2007 / Accepted: 17 December 2008 / Published online: 25 January 2009
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract The passage of environmental legislation was accompanied by concerns about its
potential detrimental effect on productivity. We assume inputs can be assigned to either abate-
ment activities or good output production. This allows us to specify regulated and unregulated
production frontiers to determine the association between pollution abatement and productiv-
ity growth. We then employ our “assigned input” model to determine the association between
productivity and abatement activities for manufacturing industries in Germany, Japan, the
Netherlands and the United States.
Keywords Assigned input model · Pollution abatement · Productivity growth
JEL Classification D24 · Q52
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10640-008-9256-2)
contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Earlier versions of this study were presented at the 1994 American Economic Association meetings (Boston)
and the 2005 Western Economic Association meetings (San Francisco). All views expressed in this study are
the authors’ and do not reflect the opinions of the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the U.S. EPA.
D. V. Aiken
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC, USA
R. Färe · S. Grosskopf
Department of Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
R. Färe
Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
C. A. Pasurka Jr. (B)
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1809T),
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
12 D. V. Aiken et al.
1 Introduction
With the passage of environmental legislation, came concerns about the international com-
petitiveness effects of implementing regulations resulting from legislation (Jaffe et al. 1995;
Pasurka 2008). One concern is increased production costs associated with pollution abatement
might reduce the competitiveness of industries in countries that implement environmental
regulations. This perspective argues that the unilateral imposition of environmental regula-
tions places firms in that nation at a competitive disadvantage relative to firms in other nations.
A related concern is whether these more stringent pollution control measures might push an
industry out of developed nations (the “industrial flight” hypothesis) and that developing
nations will compete with developed nations by minimizing mandated pollution abatement
activities (the “pollution haven” hypothesis).
Pollution abatement requires firms to employ additional inputs to maintain the same level
of good output production and therefore, by definition, productivity must decline. If the output
of abatement activities (i.e., reduced levels of the undesirable byproducts of the intended
output of production activities) is valued, then the measure of productivity must be adjusted.
While it can be argued that the output of abatement activities should be incorporated into
all productivity analyses, their effect on the traditional measure of productivity, in which we
ignore the output of abatement activities, is also worthy of investigation. In contrast to most
previous studies that focused on industries in one country, our study measures the associa-
tion between pollution abatement and productivity growth for manufacturing industries in
Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States.1 These calculations provide infor-
mation about variation in the relative burden of pollution abatement across countries and how
the burden is distributed across industries within each country.
For this paper we do not have data on undesirable outputs, but we have data on pollution
abatement capital as well as capital used for the production of good (i.e., marketed) outputs.
Thus, we will follow Pyrwes (1984) and compare the regulated outcome, i.e., when only
“good” capital is used for production of the good output to the unregulated outcome, i.e.,
when both “good” and abatement capital are used to produce the good output. Because this
technique assumes we can identify which inputs are assigned to good output production and
which inputs are assigned to abatement activities, we refer to this as the “assigned input”
model. The remainder of this study is organized as follows. Section 2 surveys previous studies
of the association between pollution abatement and productivity, while Sect. 3 describes the
assigned input model we use to investigate the association between abatement activities and
productivity. Section 4 discusses data sources and presents the results. We find that pollution
abatement capital expenditures are not associated with a substantial decline in productivity.
Finally, Sect. 5 summarizes our study and outlines conclusions that can be drawn from its
results.
2 Previous Studies
We are aware of only three cross-country studies of the productivity effects of pollution
abatement activities. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office (1985) investigated the effect of
abatement activities on the manufacturing sectors of Germany, Japan, and the United States,
1 In fact, many researchers are unaware of the existence of pollution abatement cost data for countries other
than the United States. For example, van Soest et al. (2006, p. 1151) assert “Empirical tests of the relationship
between international competitiveness and the severity of environmental regulations are hampered by the lack
of pollution abatement cost data for non-U.S. countries.”
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 13
and found pollution abatement was associated with reduced output. Conrad and Morrison
(1989) studied the association between pollution abatement and productivity growth of the
manufacturing sectors of Canada, Germany, and the United States. Finally, Valentini (2003)
undertook an econometric investigation of the effect of abatement capital expenditures on
TFP growth of the food, textile, paper, basic metals, and transport equipment industries in
Germany and the United States for 1971–1991.
The impact of pollution abatement on traditional measures of productivity (i.e., those
models focusing solely on good output production) results from a reallocation of inputs from
good output production to abatement activities. In a given technology and input vector, pollu-
tion abatement is associated with reduced good output production, which is the opportunity
cost of abatement activities. Färe et al. (2007) calculated the effect of pollution abatement on
productivity growth by modeling the joint production of good and bad (i.e., the undesirable
byproducts of good output production) outputs. This allowed them to calculate the associ-
ation between abatement activities and productivity without resorting to survey estimates
of inputs assigned to abatement activities. The model assumes inputs assigned to pollution
abatement “crowd-out” inputs assigned to good output production on a one-for-one basis.
Hence, reduced good output production associated with the reallocation of inputs from pro-
ducing the good output to abatement activities represents the opportunity cost of abatement
activities.
In the absence of information about bad outputs, most studies of the effect of pollution
abatement on productivity rely on survey estimates of input costs associated with abatement
activities. Studies employing an opportunity cost model adjust inputs by the quantity of inputs
assigned to abatement activities and recalculate productivity. Denison (1978) initial use of
the opportunity cost model was subsequently modified by Pyrwes (1984) and Conrad and
Wastl (1995).
In order to assess the association between pollution abatement and labor productivity
in the U.S. chemical industry, Pyrwes (1984) estimated a CES production function using a
pooled time series with observations from 1971–1976 for 4-digit standard industrial classi-
fication (SIC) chemical industries in which he assigned capital stock to either good output
production or abatement activities. He calculated the decline in labor productivity associated
with pollution abatement via a two-step process. First, he used the fitted value of good output
production to estimate labor productivity with non-abatement capital:
F(K G , L , E, M)/L
where K G is the capital stock assigned to good output production, L is labor, E is energy, and
M the material inputs. He then calculated labor productivity using the estimated production
function to calculate fitted values of good output when the capital stock assigned to abatement
activities was available for good output production:
F(K G + K A, L , E, M)/L
where K A is the capital stock assigned to pollution abatement. The difference between fitted
good output production by the regulated and unregulated production functions represents the
opportunity cost of abatement activities.
Using data on manufacturing industries in Germany from 1975 to 1991, Conrad and Wastl
(1995) estimated a cost function to assess the association between pollution and total fac-
tor productivity (TFP) by comparing cost diminution with and without capital expenditures
and material input costs assigned to pollution abatement. When they subtracted the costs
associated with pollution abatement from the rate of cost diminution, they found higher TFP
growth rates in all industries.
123
14 D. V. Aiken et al.
Both Pyrwes (1984) and Conrad and Wastl (1995) found pollution abatement reduces
good output production.2 Because Pyrwes (1984) and Conrad and Wastl (1995) calculate the
changes in good output production when inputs assigned to pollution abatement are reas-
signed to good output production, their opportunity cost calculations are comparable to our
perspective. In the next section, we specify our assigned input methodology.
3 Productivity
To estimate the productivity for the four countries, we apply a Malmquist productivity index.
Here, we follow Färe et al. (1994) and use the geometric mean formulation of the output
oriented index.3 It is defined as
Mo =
[(
Dt+1o (x t+1, yt+1)
Dt+1o (x t , yt )
) (
Dto(x t+1, yt+1)
Dto(x t , yt )
)]1/2
(1)
where xτ ∈ℜN+ denotes inputs and yτ ∈ ℜM
+ outputs τ = t, t + 1. Shephard (1970) output
oriented distance function is defined on the technology T τ as:
Dτo (xτ , yτ ) = min
θ{θ : (xτ , yτ /θ) ∈ T τ ) (2)
In the case of a single output, this function becomes
Do(x, y) = y/F(x) (3)
where F(x) is a production function. Thus, for this case we may rewrite the index as
Mo =
[(
yt+1
F t+1(x t+1)
) (
F t+1(x t )
yt
) (
yt+1
F t (x t+1)
) (
F t (x t )
yt
)]1/2
(4)
Note that if the production function can be written with a Solow residual
y = F t (x) = A(t) F(x) (5)
then the Malmquist index takes the form
Mo =
(
yt+1
F(x t+1)
) (
F(x t )
yt
)
=A(t + 1)
A(t)(6)
where the residuals A(t) and A(t + 1) capture the state of the technology in periods t and
t + 1.
To estimate the index we use an activity analysis or DEA approach. Assume we have
k = 1, . . ., K observations of inputs and outputs for t = 1, . . ., T periods. The τ period
technology for observation k′ is given by:
2 Numerous studies using U.S. data have found pollution abatement has an adverse effect on productivity.
Among recent studies, both Gray and Shadbegian (2003), which used plant-level data for pulp and paper plants,
and Millimet and Osang (2003), which used 3-digit SIC manufacturing data, found pollution abatement was
associated with declines in productivity. In addition, Shadbegian and Gray (2006) found pollution abatement
is associated with lower levels of technical efficiency.
3 This index was introduced by Caves et al. (1982).
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 15
Fτ (xτk′) = max
K∑
k=1
zτk yτ
k
s.t.K∑
k=1
zτk xτ
kn ≤ xτk′n
, n = 1, . . . , N
zτk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K
(7)
In this paper, we choose the “good’ production model as the reference technology, i.e., we
use xτGkn on the left hand side above. We also apply a meta-production function. “A meta-
production function is defined as a common underlying production function that can be used
to represent the input–output relationship of a given industry, e.g., agriculture in all coun-
tries…” (Lau and Yotopoulos 1989, p. 242). Therefore, the production technology for each
industry consists of observations from all countries in our sample. It follows that observation
k′ represents information for a specific year for a country in our sample.
Hence, the models we will estimate are of the form:
Fτ (xτGk′ ) = max
K∑
k=1
zτk yτ
k
s.t.K∑
k=1
zτk xτG
kn ≤ xτGk′n
, n = 1, . . . , N
zτk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K
(8)
where xτG represents inputs assigned to good output production. The unregulated production
function is specified as:
Fτ (xτGk′ + xτA
k′ ) = maxK∑
k=1
zτk yτ
k
s.t.K∑
k=1
zτk xτG
kn ≤(
xτGk′n
+ xτ Ak′n
)
, n = 1, . . . , N
zk ≥ 0, k = 1, . . . , K
(9)
where xτA represents inputs that were assigned to pollution abatement by the regulated tech-
nology.
The assigned input model specifies different input constraints when modeling the regulated
(Eq. 8) and unregulated (Eq. 9) production functions. First, we assign inputs to either good
output production or abatement activities. The regulated production function (Eq. 8) assumes
only inputs associated with good output production are used to produce good outputs, while
the unregulated production function (Eq. 9) assumes inputs assigned to abatement activities
are also available for good output production. Hence, the assigned input model assumes cap-
ital assigned to abatement activities results in an identical reduction in capital assigned to
good output production (i.e., complete crowding out). The difference in good output produc-
tion associated with the regulated and unregulated production technologies represents the
opportunity cost of abatement activities.
The Malmquist productivity index (Eq. 4) is our measure of productivity change. For the
regulated technology, production change (PRODR) is calculated by substituting the pro-
duction function specified in Eq. 8 into Eq. 4, while productivity change for the unregulated
technology (PRODUR) is calculated by substituting the production function specified in Eq. 9
into Eq. 4. If x t = x t+1 and yt = yt+1 (i.e., no changes in inputs or output), there is no change
in productivity for the regulated technology, i.e., PRODR(•) = 1. Improved productivity is
signaled by PRODR(•) > 1, while declining productivity is indicated by PRODR(•) < 1. Simi-
lar interpretations exist for PRODUR. Färe et al. (1994) demonstrated PRODR and PRODUR
123
16 D. V. Aiken et al.
can be decomposed into technical change (i.e., a shift in the frontier) and changes in technical
efficiency (i.e., a change in distance between an observation and the frontier). Because the
same processes are used to construct the regulated and unregulated frontiers by the assigned
input model, differences between PRODR and PRODUR are due solely to changes in the
share of inputs assigned to pollution abatement by the regulated technology from one period
to the next. As a result, we do not decompose PRODR and PRODUR into technical change
and changes in technical efficiency.
The ratio PRODUR to PRODR yields the pollution abatement index (PAI), which
measures the association between pollution abatement and productivity change:
PAI =PRODUR
PRODR(10)
While pollution abatement typically reduces good output production, its effect on produc-
tivity depends on relative growth rates of the unregulated and regulated production frontiers.
If good output production associated with the unregulated and regulated frontiers changes
by the same percentage, PAI equals unity and changes in abatement activity have no effect
on PRODR. If good output production associated with the unregulated frontier increases by
a larger (smaller) percentage than its production associated with the regulated frontier, PAI
exceeds (is less than) unity. Therefore, PAI > 1 indicates pollution abatement is a growing
share of total capital spending, so that PRODR is growing more slowly than PRODUR,
while PAI < 1 indicates pollution abatement is a declining share of total capital spending
and PRODR is growing more rapidly than PRODUR. Hence, PAI > 1 indicates pollution
abatement is associated with reduced productivity growth, while PAI < 1 indicates pollution
abatement is associated with increased productivity growth.
With the assigned input model, good output production by the unregulated technology
equals or exceeds good output production by the regulated technology. Therefore, care must
be exercised when interpreting PAI values. For example, the decline in the share of capital
expenditures assigned to pollution abatement, which is reflected by PAI < 1, can result from
either a reduction in regulatory stringency or improved technology for reducing bad output
production. When data on bad output production are unavailable, it is not possible to make
definitive statements about the source of the decline in the share of capital expenditures
assigned to pollution abatement.
After regulations are implemented, PRODR is the observed change in productivity, while
PRODUR is unobserved. Equation 10 reveals that PAI > 1 can be associated with PRODR(•) >
1 or PRODR(•) < 1, while PAI < 1 can be associated with PRODR(•) > 1 or PRODR(•) < 1.
Therefore, no definitive statement can be made about the association between PAI and the
observed rate of productivity growth—PRODR. In the next section, we discuss the data and
results generated by our assigned input model.
4 Data and Results
Implementing the model presented in the previous section, requires information on capital
stock assigned to pollution abatement, capital stock assigned to good output production,
employment, and good output production for the manufacturing sector (ISIC 15–36) in each
country. In order to observe variations across industries, we also assemble data for the food
and tobacco (ISIC 15–16), textiles and leather (ISIC 17–19), wood (ISIC 20), paper products
(ISIC 21–22), chemical, rubber, and plastics (ISIC 23–25), non-metallic mineral products
(ISIC 26), basic and fabricated metals (ISIC 27–28), and machinery and equipment (ISIC
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 17
29–35) industries.4 Developing estimates of capital stock assigned to pollution abatement
and good output production first requires data on the share of capital expenditures assigned to
air, water, and solid waste abatement activities for manufacturing and its associated industries
in each country.5 We will now outline sources of these data.6
The Federal Republic of Germany (1978–2003, 1980,2000,2004–2005) started collect-
ing data on abatement capital expenditures in 1975. From 1996 until 2002, its survey only
collected estimates of expenditures for end-of-pipe abatement activities. Starting in 2002,
the survey once again solicited estimates of expenditures associated with both end-of-pipe
and integrated abatement technologies. The United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 1978–1996)
collected abatement capital expenditure data between 1973 and 1994, excluding 1987 whose
values we interpolate. In addition, is necessary to interpolate pollution abatement capital
expenditures for tobacco products (ISIC 16) for 1978–1981 and 1985, leather and leather
products (ISIC 19) for 1978–1981, and miscellaneous manufacturing (ISIC 36) for 1978–
1981 and 1985.
Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) (1977–2001) collected abate-
ment investment expenditures data from large firms for 1965 to 2001, while the Ministry of
Economy, Trade, and Industry (2002–2004) collected these data starting in 2002.7 Because
expenditures by media were not reported between 1980 and 1984 and in 1991, we interpolate
the share of capital expenditures assigned to pollution abatement for these years. In addition,
it is necessary to interpolate petroleum industry (part of ISIC 23–25) pollution abatement
capital expenditures for 1991–1992.
While the Netherlands’ (1982–present) first survey of abatement capital expenditures
collected data for 1979, it also reported estimates of abatement capital expenditures for
1975–1978. Through 1997, it is only necessary to interpolate 1987–1988 expenditures for
the chemicals (ISIC 24) and basic metals (ISIC 27) industries. After 1997, confidentiality
considerations result in more data being withheld. The interpolations required to estimate
the missing observations are discussed in the Supplementary material.
In addition to the aforementioned data problems, calculating the relative intensity of
abatement activities is further complicated by variations in the composition of production
activities within an industry across countries. This is especially true for Japan where no abate-
ment expenditure data are collected for food and tobacco (ISIC 15–16), leather (ISIC 19),
wood (ISIC 20), printing and publishing (ISIC 22), rubber and plastics (ISIC 25), fabricated
metal products (ISIC 28), and several categories of machinery. Our aggregation procedure
assumes the missing industries exhibit abatement intensities that are identical to the industries
4 Industries are defined in terms of international standard industrial classification (ISIC), Rev. 3 codes.
Manufacturing includes Furniture; Manufacturing, N.E.C. (ISIC 36), but excludes Recycling (ISIC 37). The
Supplementary material, which is available from the corresponding author upon request, contains a detailed
discussion of the data.
5 When calculating the share of capital expenditures assigned to abatement activities, we use values for total
(abatement plus non-abatement) capital expenditures that appear in or are used by reports in which the abate-
ment data are published. However, we were unable to locate industry-level total capital expenditure data for
the Netherlands that allowed us to replicate the aggregate shares of capital expenditure assigned to pollution
abatement in 2000–2004 as reported by Statistics Netherlands. Nevertheless, the Statistics Netherlands data
we use to derive 2000–2004 industry-level shares yield values for the manufacturing sector that are relatively
close to published values.
6 While the surveys for Germany and the United States would permit more disaggregated industries, our
industry selection is limited by the aggregated industry data for Japan and the Netherlands. In addition, the
perpetual inventory method precludes developing a pollution abatement capital stock time series for other
countries.
7 Uno (1987, 1995) discusses pollution abatement expenditures by industries in Japan.
123
18 D. V. Aiken et al.
with which they are aggregated. This will bias our results according to whether the actual
abatement intensity of these industries is lower or higher than the industries with which
they are aggregated. It follows that these biases may also affect our estimates for the entire
manufacturing sector.
Next, we establish concordances between the national industrial classification systems
used to report abatement capital expenditures and the ISIC (Rev. 3) system.8 Table 1 reports
the percent of capital expenditures assigned to abatement activities for selected years. Aside
from sampling error, fluctuations in the share of capital expenditures assigned to pollution
abatement can be explained by whether new regulations are being implemented.
Following Harrigan (1999), the OECD STructural ANalysis (STAN) Database for Indus-
trial Analysis, which provides industry-level data for Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) countries from 1970 to the present, is our primary source of capi-
tal expenditure data.9 The product of the share of capital expenditures assigned to abatement
activities and gross private fixed capital formation in current prices (GFCF) yields our esti-
mate of capital expenditures assigned to abatement activities. Subtracting abatement capital
expenditures from GFCF yields capital expenditures assigned to good output production.
Because the STAN Database does not provide capital stock estimates, we adopt the per-
petual inventory method employed by Harrigan (1999) and use GFCF and the index of gross
capital fixed formation (GFCFK) to derive real capital expenditures, i. Assuming capital has
a useful life of 10 years (T = 10) and an annual depreciation rate of 15% (δ = 0.15), allows
us to derive the real capital stock for industry j in country c for year t:
kcj t =
T∑
n=1
(1 − δ)n−1icj,t−n
In this distributed lag specification, the capital stock assigned to good output production
and pollution abatement in period t consists of capital expenditures from period t − 1 to
period t − 10.10
The Groningen Growth and Development Centre (2006) is our source for total annual
hours worked, which is our measure of labor. Finally, we use value added in current prices
8 The industry concordances developed by Bouman (1998, p. 22) are the starting point for our concordances
for Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. We developed the concordance for industries in Japan. All
concordances are discussed in the Supplementary material. All GAMS programs, data, and the Supplementary
material are available from the corresponding author upon request.
9 We employ data downloaded from the OECD STAN database in October 2004 and June 2005. Data in the
STAN database are classified with ISIC, Rev. 3 codes. The Supplementary material explains how we derived
values the non-metallic minerals (ISIC 26) industry in the Netherlands. Because the downloaded OECD data
contained no capital expenditure data for Japan, we used the OECD STAN Database for Industrial Analysis,
1974–1993 (OECD 1995) and the OECD STAN Database for Industrial Analysis, 1978–1997 (OECD 1999)
to develop a consistent set of capital expenditure estimates for 1973–1994. We then use changes in 1994–
2003 capital expenditure values in the Japan Statistical Yearbook (Japan, 1997–2005), to extrapolate the 1994
OECD values to 1995–2002.
10 If we wished to start our pollution abatement capital stock series in 1975, the perpetual inventory method
requires we assume no pollution abatement capital exists before 1975. However, we have evidence that coun-
tries in our sample undertook pollution abatement capital expenditures prior to 1975. As a result, the time
series of pollution abatement capital expenditures must be long enough to guarantee the retirement of all
pollution abatement capital existing prior to 1975. Because we assume the service life of capital is 10 years,
1975–1984 investment flows are used to derive the pollution abatement capital stock series in which all pollu-
tion abatement capital stock existing prior to 1975 to have been discarded. Therefore, we limit our analysis to
those years (1985 and later) for which the pollution abatement capital stock has been derived in a consistent
manner across countries.
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 19
Table 1 Percent of capital expenditures assigned to air, water, and solid waste pollution abatement
1975 1980 1985 1990 1994 1998 2002
Manufacturing (ISIC 15–36)
Germany 5.6 3.5 4.0 4.9 5.2 2.7 2.5
Japan 17.0 3.8 2.0 1.2 4.1 3.1 4.6
Netherlands 3.2 3.4 2.4 6.5 4.3 3.8 3.7
United States 9.8 5.0 3.4 5.9 6.7
Food and tobacco (ISIC 15–16)
Germany 3.4 2.3 2.9 2.9 3.5 2.4 1.5
Japan
Netherlands 3.3 5.8 1.7 6.9 3.1 3.8 3.1
United States 5.4 3.5 2.2 2.8 2.6
Textiles and leather (ISIC 17–19)
Germany 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.5 3.5 1.7 1.4
Japan 19.2 2.2 5.2 3.7 3.4 3.1 7.7
Netherlands 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.2 9.3 0.0 3.4
United States 3.4 3.2 1.0 1.7 1.5
Wood (ISIC 20)
Germany 3.3 5.3 3.2 5.4 7.0 2.7 2.1
Japan
Netherlands 0.3 0.2 3.2 1.3 2.8 3.5 2.1
United States 5.9 4.0 2.1 5.6 5.1
Paper products (ISIC 21–22)
Germany 3.4 3.4 3.1 4.9 5.5 3.1 1.7
Japan 21.8 3.9 3.2 6.0 8.0 8.5 6.6
Netherlands 1.2 0.2 1.4 1.7 0.7 1.5 1.7
United States 15.9 4.4 3.4 6.9 5.2
Chemicals, rubber, and plastics (ISIC 23–25)
Germany 12.1 7.1 6.5 11.4 11.2 4.7 6.0
Japan 23.8 3.9 3.0 3.6 5.3 5.3 5.5
Netherlands 5.7 5.2 4.1 12.9 8.3 6.4 6.7
United States 13.8 9.2 7.0 12.1 16.9
Non-metallic mineral products (ISIC 26)
Germany 4.3 5.6 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.3 3.0
Japan 12.7 3.0 3.3 3.4 4.4 1.5 26.0
Netherlands 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.2 7.1 4.7 3.3
United States 11.0 5.0 2.2 4.7 7.4
Basic and fabricated metals (ISIC 27–28)
Germany 7.5 5.2 7.7 6.3 6.2 3.6 3.1
Japan 16.7 4.7 3.4 3.4 5.3 3.8 8.0
Netherlands 3.9 4.9 3.6 5.6 3.9 2.3 2.2
United States 14.6 8.7 4.1 6.4 4.6
Machinery and equipment (ISIC 29–35)
Germany 2.2 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 1.3 1.3
Japan 4.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 3.2 1.9 3.5
Netherlands 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.7 2.3 0.9
United States 2.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.6
(VALU) and the index of value added (VALUK) from the OECD STAN Database to derive
real value added.
Constructing four-country meta-frontiers requires converting real value-added and real
gross fixed capital formation expenditures into a single monetary unit—U.S. dollars. We
use unit value ratios (UVR), developed by the Groningen Growth and Development Centre
(GGDC 1997) and Inklaar et al. (2003), to convert industry real value added into U.S. dol-
lars. The 1997 benchmark UVRs are available for ISIC (Rev. 3) manufacturing industries.
123
20 D. V. Aiken et al.
Table 2 Summary statistics: Average annual percent growth of inputs and output (1985–2002)
ISIC Value Capital stock Capital stock Total hours
(Rev. 3) added (good output ) (total) worked
Germany
Manufacturing 15–36 0.86 1.73 1.71 0.15
Food and tobacco 15–16 0.49 0.50 0.50 −0.40
Textiles and leather 17–19 −2.76 −1.98 −1.93 −3.74
Wood 20 1.97 1.87 1.99 −0.63
Paper products 21–22 0.03 3.77 3.83 −0.09
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 2.68 2.34 2.25 −0.94
Non-metallic minerals 26 1.05 0.83 0.85 −1.06
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 1.56 1.43 1.33 −0.68
Machinery & equipment 29–35 0.77 2.02 2.05 −0.84
Japan
Manufacturing 15–36 2.07 9.61 8.60 −1.68
Food and tobacco 15–16
Textiles and leather 17–19 −3.37 4.21 3.96 −3.56
Wood 20
Paper products 21–22 0.65 11.38 10.14 −0.68
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 2.25 10.82 9.61 −1.19
Non-metallic minerals 26 −0.01 8.00 7.32 −2.17
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 −0.04 7.34 6.41 −1.60
Machinery & equipment 29–35 6.48 8.66 8.58 −1.45
Netherlands
Manufacturing 15–36 2.49 3.40 3.43 −0.56
Food and tobacco 15–16 2.38 1.81 1.69 −1.04
Textiles and leather 17–19 −0.53 0.26 0.56 −3.00
Wood 20 3.50 4.29 4.49 −0.35
Paper products 21–22 3.74 5.48 5.40 −0.67
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 2.81 3.11 3.27 −0.55
Non-metallic minerals 26 2.09 0.68 0.90 −0.23
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 1.68 3.73 3.52 −0.06
Machinery & equipment 29–35 2.87 4.97 5.03 −0.49
United Statesa
Manufacturing 15–36 2.61 3.64 3.52 −0.39
Food and tobacco 15–16 −0.20 3.49 3.16 0.27
Textiles and leather 17–19 2.37 1.57 1.63 −1.22
Wood 20 −0.63 −1.86 −1.82 1.41
Paper products 21–22 0.45 6.79 6.54 0.55
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 4.01 4.08 3.95 0.76
Non-metallic minerals 26 1.82 −0.76 −0.64 −0.29
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 2.17 −0.12 −0.38 −0.66
Machinery & equipment 29–35 3.61 4.66 4.68 −1.19
a United States annual changes are for 1985–1994
Value added for each industry in domestic currencies (i.e., Euros and yen) is multiplied by its
respective 1997 UVR. Like Harrigan (1999), the Penn World Table (PWT) Version 6.2 (see
Heston et al. 2006) is our source of purchasing power parity data for investment expenditures.
Therefore, we convert investment expenditures to U.S. dollars using a single PPP for each
country for each year.
Table 2 presents summary statistics of growth rates of value added, employment, and cap-
ital stock assigned to good output production and abatement activities. When deriving value
added and capital stock estimates for a meta-frontier, these growth rates can differ with their
values for a single-country frontier.
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 21
We calculate our meta-frontiers using a windows technology.11 For example, the produc-
tion technology of period t +1 consists of observations from periods t +1, t, and t −1, while
the production technology of period t consists of observations from periods t, t −1, and t −2.
For each 2-year pair, four LP problems are solved for both the regulated and unregulated
technologies. Because we use “windows” to model the production technology, our sample
generates results for 2-year pairs starting in 1986–1987 and continuing through 1992–1993
for the United States, and 2000–2001 for Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands.
Table 3 presents the geometric means of annual changes in PRODUR, PRODR, and PAI
for the manufacturing sector and its associated industries.12 While the manufacturing sector
of United States with a PAI of 1.0011 is most adversely affected by pollution abatement,
regulated productivity growth in the manufacturing sector of Germany is higher than unreg-
ulated productivity growth (PAI = 0.9976). In addition, it can be seen that there is substantial
variation across industries. For the food industry (ISIC 15–16), the PAI ranges from 0.9998
for Germany to 1.0045 for the Netherlands. For the textile industry (ISIC 17–19), the range
of the PAI is from 1.0000 for Germany to 1.0037 for the Netherlands. For the wood industry
(ISIC 20), PAI ranges from 0.9991 for the United States to 1.0037 for Germany. For the paper
industry (ISIC 21–22), the range of PAI is from 1.0000 for Germany to 1.0085 for Japan.
For the chemical industry (ISIC 23–25), the PAI ranges from 0.9989 for the Netherlands to
1.0016 for Japan. For the non-metals mineral industry (ISIC 26), the range of PAI is from
0.9984 for the United States to 1.0044 for Japan. For the basic and fabricated metals industry
(ISIC 27–28), the PAI ranges from 0.9994 for the Netherlands to 1.0007 for the United States.
For the machinery and equipment industry (ISIC 29–35), the range of PAI is from 0.9997
for the Netherlands to 1.0009 for Japan. Overall, the largest decline in productivity change
associated with pollution abatement involves the paper industry of Japan, while the largest
increase in productivity associated with pollution abatement involves the non-metallic min-
erals industry in the United States. While it is difficult to make causality statements about
observed changes in productivity, the PAI values indicate assigning capital expenditures to
pollution abatement did not have a substantial affect on productivity growth. In addition, our
results reveal the importance of assessing the effect of pollution abatement using industry
instead of economy-wide data on pollution abatement costs. For example, during the 1987–
2001 period Germany has a low PAI for the entire manufacturing sector, while it has a high
PAI for the wood (ISIC 20) industry. Finally, out results indicate substantial variation in
productivity effects across time periods.
For industries where PRODR and PAI assume values greater than unity (e.g., the non-
metallic minerals industry in Germany), increased rates of productivity growth occurred
simultaneously with increased levels of pollution abatement. In addition, industries where
PRODR and PAI are less than unity (e.g., the chemical industry of the United States) simulta-
neously experienced decreased rates of productivity growth with decreased levels of pollution
abatement. For industries where PRODR exceeds unity while PAI is less than unity (e.g.,
the chemical industry in the Netherlands), increased productivity growth is associated with
decreased levels of pollution abatement. Finally, PRODR less than unity and PAI greater
than unity (e.g., the paper industry in Japan), signifies a case where decreased productivity
growth is associated with increased levels of pollution abatement.
11 Shestalova (2003) compared changes in productivity and efficiency calculated using DEA with contempo-
raneous and sequential frontiers, while Asmild et al. (2004) investigated the consequences of using ‘windows’
instead of contemporaneous frontiers.
12 Subtracting unity from the values reported in Table 3 and multiplying by 100 provides the average annual
percentage increase or decrease.
123
22 D. V. Aiken et al.
Table 3 Pollution abatement index, 1987–2001 (geometric means of 2-year pair values)
ISIC (Rev. 3) PRODUR PRODR PAI
Germany
Manufacturing 15–36 1.0131 1.0156 0.9976
Food and tobacco 15–16 1.0125 1.0127 0.9998
Textiles and leather 17–19 1.0240 1.0240 1.0000
Wood 20 1.0247 1.0209 1.0037
Paper products 21–22 0.9993 0.9993 1.0000
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 1.0191 1.0191 1.0000
Non-metallic minerals 26 1.0194 1.0157 1.0036
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 1.0261 1.0261 1.0000
Machinery & equipment 29–35 1.0172 1.0175 0.9998
Japan
Manufacturing 15–36 0.9855 0.9852 1.0003
Food and tobacco 15–16
Textiles and leather 17–19 0.9346 0.9334 1.0013
Wood 20
Paper products 21–22 0.9911 0.9827 1.0085
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 1.0246 1.0230 1.0016
Non-metallic minerals 26 0.9607 0.9565 1.0044
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 1.0183 1.0181 1.0002
Machinery & equipment 29–35 1.0586 1.0576 1.0009
Netherlands
Manufacturing 15–36 1.0079 1.0078 1.0000
Food and tobacco 15–16 1.0344 1.0298 1.0045
Textiles and leather 17–19 1.0427 1.0389 1.0037
Wood 20 1.0211 1.0200 1.0011
Paper products 21–22 1.0241 1.0232 1.0008
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 1.0369 1.0381 0.9989
Non-metallic minerals 26 1.0215 1.0171 1.0043
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 1.0216 1.0222 0.9994
Machinery & equipment 29–35 1.0020 1.0023 0.9997
United Statesa
Manufacturing 15–36 1.0021 1.0010 1.0011
Food and tobacco 15–16 0.9910 0.9896 1.0014
Textiles and leather 17–19 1.0282 1.0253 1.0028
Wood 20 0.9775 0.9784 0.9991
Paper products 21–22 0.9918 0.9909 1.0010
Chem., rubber, plastics 23–25 0.9961 0.9962 0.9998
Non-metallic minerals 26 1.0383 1.0400 0.9984
Basic & fabricated metals 27–28 1.0149 1.0142 1.0007
Machinery & equipment 29–35 1.0156 1.0152 1.0004
a Results for United States are for 1987–1993
In order to view variations in annual changes that are obscured by the averages reported
in Table 3, we plot PRODUR, PRODR, and PAI for the manufacturing sectors of Germany,
Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Viewing these figures
allows us to make two observations. Only the PAI of Germany shows substantial variation on
a year-to-year basis. Hence, only in Germany is there a notable divergence between PRODUR
and PRODR. Manufacturing PAI in Germany ranges from 0.9590 in 1994–1995 to 1.0146
in 1988–1989. For Japan, the range of PAI is from 0.9965 in 1999–2000 to 1.0047 in 1986–
1987. For the Netherlands, PAI ranges from 0.9970 in 1997–1998 to 1.0044 in 1999–2000.
For the United States, the range of PAI is from 0.9976 in 1989–1990 to 1.0035 in 1991–1992.
In order to provide a comparison with the USA, we calculate the PAI of Germany, Japan,
and the Netherlands for the same 1987–1993 period as the USA. We find the 1987–1993 PAI
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 23
Fig. 1 Trends in PRODUR, PRODR, and PAI for manufacturing in Germany (1987–2001)
Fig. 2 Trends in PRODUR, PRODR, and PAI for manufacturing in Japan (1987–2001)
of the manufacturing sectors of Germany (1.0081) and Japan (1.0021) are much higher
than those reported in Table 3 for 1987–2001. As a result, only the PAI of the Nether-
lands manufacturing (1.0008) is less than the PAI of USA manufacturing during 1987–
1993. Similar changes are also observed when comparing the PAI of individual industries for
1987–1993 relative to 1987–2001. While the PAI of the wood (ISIC 20) industry in
Germany decreases from 1.0037 to 1.0019, the higher manufacturing PAI for Germany from
1987–1993 is driven by increased PAI of non-metallic mineral products (ISIC 26) from
1.0036 to 1.0071 and machinery and equipment (ISIC 29–35) from 0.9998 to 1.0028.
The higher manufacturing PAI of Japan is driven by the increase in the PAI of chemicals,
123
24 D. V. Aiken et al.
Fig. 3 Trends in PRODUR, PRODR, and PAI for manufacturing in the Netherlands (1987–2001)
Fig. 4 Trends in PRODUR, PRODR, and PAI for manufacturing in the United States (1987–1993)
rubber, and plastics (ISIC 23–25) from 1.0016 to 1.0033. Even for the Netherlands, substan-
tial changes emerge for individual manufacturing industries when we focus on the 1987–1993
period relative to 1987–2001. For example, the PAI of the textiles and leather (ISIC 17–19)
and non-metallic mineral products (ISIC 26) industries decrease from 1.0037 to 1.0001 and
from 1.0043 to 1.0008, respectively. On the other hand, the PAI of chemicals, rubber, and plas-
tics (ISIC 23–25) increases from 0.9989 to 1.0088, while basic and fabricated metals (ISIC
27–28) increases from 0.9994 to 1.0023. Hence, limiting our analysis to years for which we
have information for all four countries leads us to conclude that pollution abatement did not
adversely affect the manufacturing sector of the USA relative to Germany, Japan, and the
Netherlands.
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 25
5 Conclusions
We investigated the association between pollution abatement capital expenditures and pro-
ductivity growth for manufacturing industries in Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the
United States from the 1987 through 2001. We believe this study represents the first appli-
cation of pollution abatement capital expenditure data from these four countries being used
in the same study.
Because releasing capital from pollution abatement results in the unregulated technology
producing more of the good output than the regulated technology, the traditional view is that
pollution abatement is associated with reduced rates of productivity growth. In our study,
PAI measures productivity changes associated with assigning capital to pollution abatement.
The primary finding of our study is that since the mid-1980s there are relatively small dif-
ferences in productivity growth for the regulated and unregulated technologies. In our model,
this can be seen in PAI values close to unity. This is the consequence of similar growth rates
for capital stock assigned to good output production and capital stock assigned to pollution
abatement. If data existed back to the onset of assigning capital expenditures to pollution
abatement, we suspect more substantial differences between PRODUR and PRODR would be
observed. As a result of this evidence, our primary conclusion is pollution abatement capital
expenditures are not associated with a substantial decline in manufacturing productivity.
As was the case for previous cross-country productivity studies, we confronted several
problems in the course of developing data for our meta-frontier analysis. One problem is
the reunification of Germany and the conversion of data from West Germany to the re-uni-
fied Germany.13 In addition, the most recent STAN databases do not provide gross capital
formation data for Japan. This forced us to use different sources for the capital expenditure
estimates for Japan. Finally, the standard caveats associated with converting value added and
gross capital formation data to U.S. dollars are compounded by the conversion of pre-Euro
value added and capital formation data for Germany and the Netherlands into Euros via their
January 1, 1999 irrevocable conversion rates (see Schreyer and Suyker 2002, p. 7).
Both the model we specified and the data employed to implement it assume assigning
capital expenditures to either good output production or pollution abatement is a feasible
undertaking. Although widely used, several concerns have been raised about these surveys
(see Becker and Shadbegian 2007; Gallaher et al. 2008). The primary concern involves the dif-
ficulty associated with estimating “change in production process” capital expenditures (e.g.,
convert plant to consume fuels that generate fewer emissions). As the share of pollution
abatement capital expenditures associated with change-in-process techniques increases—
and the relative importance of end-of-pipe abatement expenditures declines—it becomes
increasingly difficult to determine which capital expenditures are associated with abatement
activities.14 In spite of these concerns, survey estimates of pollution abatement capital expen-
ditures remain the best data currently available to compare changes in the absolute and relative
burden of abatement costs incurred by the four countries in our sample.
Information on air and water pollution abatement capital expenditures assigned to change-
in-process (CIP) and end-of-pipe (EOP) abatement strategies in Germany and the United
13 The 1995 issue (p. 704) of Statistisches Jahrbuch (Federal Republic of Germany) reports shares of capital
expenditures assigned to pollution abatement by manufacturing and non-manufacturing plants in the former
West Germany of 5.0 and 4.8% for 1991 and 1992, respectively. Comparable values for the unified Germany
were 5.3 and 5.6%.
14 Between 1973 and 1994, the share of manufacturing air pollution abatement capital expenditures rep-
resented by “change in production process” techniques increased from 17.4 to 48.3% (U.S. Department of
Commerce 1976, p. 47; 1996, p. 25).
123
26 D. V. Aiken et al.
States provides some additional insights. The share of pollution abatement capital expendi-
tures categorized as CIP expenditures increased from 15.5% in 1973 to 41.7 in 1994 (i.e., a
170% share increase) for the USA. Interestingly, the 2003 CIP share for the manufacturing
sector in Germany was only 32%. There is substantial variation both in trends and shares for
the last year for which data are available. Among pollution-intensive industries in Germany,
only the chemical industry (ISIC 24) has an above average share of pollution abatement
capital expenditures categorized as CIP. On the other hand, petroleum refining (ISIC 23)
and rubber and plastics (ISIC 25) both report below average shares. For the USA, petroleum
(ISIC 23) and chemicals (ISIC 24) report above average shares in 1994, while rubber and
plastics (ISIC 25) report below average shares. While the share of pollution abatement capital
expenditures categorized as CIP exhibits a substantial increase in USA manufacturing, there
is substantial variation across industries. For example, petroleum and coal products (ISIC 23)
and fabricated metals (ISIC 28) report share increases of 350% in CIP abatement techniques
between 1973 and 1994, while non-metallic minerals (ISIC 26) increased only 50%, wood
(ISIC 20) increased 70%, and primary metals (ISIC 27) increased 80%.
Our inability to account for employment and intermediate inputs—such as energy—
assigned to pollution abatement represents a shortcoming of the empirical analysis presented
in this study. A review of trends in the ratio of annual pollution abatement current account
costs for air, water, and solid waste abatement to industry output reveals this ratio doubled
between 1973 and 1994 for USA manufacturing (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978–
1996). Interestingly, more pollution intensive-industries experienced smaller than average in-
creases, while less pollution-intensive industries experienced higher than average increases.
Although this ratio increased by 50% between 1984 and 2003 for manufacturing in the
Netherlands, the 2003 ratio for the Netherlands, it is still less than the 1994 USA value.
Finally, while this ratio decreased by 20% between 1996 and 2002 for manufacturing in
Germany, its 2002 value is higher than the 1994 USA value.
While it is difficult to make an exact assessment of the bias introduced by using only
capital expenditure data, a simple assessment would be this approach introduces no biases if
other inputs are assigned to pollution abatement in the same proportion as capital. It follows
that our results understate the association between pollution abatement and productivity if
the share of other inputs assigned to pollution abatement is higher than the share for capital;
while our results overstate the association between pollution abatement and productivity if
the share of other inputs assigned to pollution abatement is less than the share for capital.
One approach to determine the importance of this exclusion involves using Bureau of the
Census of the United States (1973–1994) data on labor and material, supplies, services, and
equipment leasing costs assigned to pollution abatement. This would permit a comparison of
our “capital stock only” results with results that calculate the association between abatement
activities and productivity for U.S. manufacturing industries using the data on capital, labor,
and aggregate intermediate inputs assigned to pollution abatement.
Finally, it would be useful to undertake a more thorough investigation of the associa-
tion between the assigned input and joint production models. This investigation involves
modeling a network technology that requires information not only on good and bad output
production, but also data on inputs assigned to good output production and inputs assigned to
abatement activities. This would permit an investigation into discrepancies in the productivity
results produced by the joint production and assigned input models, and the consequences
of adopting EOP and CIP abatement strategies.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank David Kauper and an anonymous referee for helpful com-
ments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. We also wish to thank Thomas Grundmann, Dieter
123
Pollution Abatement and Productivity Growth 27
Schäfer, Carsten Stahmer, and Kimio Uno for assistance with the pollution abatement expenditure data. Some
of the research for this paper was conducted at the Library of Congress and was facilitated by the staff of the
Asian Reading Room.
References
Asmild M, Paradi JC, Aggarwall V, Schaffnit-Chatterjee C (2004) Combining dea window analysis with the
malmquist index approach in a study of the canadian banking industry. J Product Anal 21(1):67–89
Becker RA, Shadbegian RJ (2007) Issues and challenges in measuring environmental expenditures by U.S.
manufacturing: the redevelopment of the pace survey. Working paper 07-20, Center for Economic Stud-
ies, U.S. Census Bureau or Working Paper no. 2007-08, National Center for Environmental Economics,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bouman M (1998) Environmental costs and capital flight. Tinbergen Institute Research Series, vol 177. Thesis
Publishers, Amsterdam
Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE (1982) The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement
of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica 50(6):1393–1414
Conrad K, Morrison C (1989) The impact of pollution abatement investment on productivity change: an
empirical comparison of the U.S., Germany, and Canada. South Econ J 55(3):684–698
Conrad K, Wastl D (1995) The impact of environmental regulation on productivity in german industries. Empir
Econ 20(4):615–633
Denison EF (1978) Effects of selected changes in the institutional and human environment upon output per
unit of input. Surv Curr Bus 58(1):21–44
Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M et al (1994) Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in
industrialized countries. Am Econ Rev 84(1):66–83
Färe R, Grosskopf S, Pasurka C (2007) Pollution abatement activities and traditional productivity. Ecol Econ
62(3–4):673–682
Federal Republic of Germany, Statistiche Bundesamt (1978–2003) Statistisches jahrbuch. Wiesbaden
Federal Republic of Germany, Statistiche Bundesamt (1980,2000,2004–2005), Investitionen für umweltschutz
im produzierenden gewerbe, Unwelt, Fachserie 19, Reihe 3, Wiesbaden
Gallaher M, Morgan C, Shadbegian R (2008) Redesign of the 2005 pollution abatement costs and expenditure
survey. Working paper no. 2008-01, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Gray WB, Shadbegian RJ (2003) Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. J Environ Econ
Manag 46(3):384–402
Groningen Growth and Development Centre, ICOP Database 1997 Benchmark. http://www.ggdc.net
Groningen Growth and Development Centre (2006) 60-Industry database. September. http://www.ggdc.net
Harrigan J (1999) Estimation of cross-country differences in industry production functions. J Int Econ
47(2):267–293
Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2006), Penn world table version 6.2, center for international comparisons at
the University of Pennsylvania, September. http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt_index.php
Inklaar R, Wu H, van Ark B (2003) ‘Losing ground’ Japanese labour productivity and unit labour costs
in manufacturing in comparison to the U.S. Research Memorandum GD-64, Groningen Growth and
Development Centre, University of Groningen
Jaffe AB, Peterson SR, Portney PR, et al (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S.
manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us? J Econ Lit 33(1), 132–163
Japan (1997–2005), Japan statistical yearbook
Lau LJ, Yotopoulos PA (1989) The meta-production function approach to technological change in world
agriculture. J Dev Econ 31(2):241–269
Millimet DL, Osang T (2003) Environmental regulation and productivity growth: an analysis of US manu-
facturing industries. In: Böehringer C, Löeschel A (eds) Empirical modeling of the economy and the
environment. ZEW economic studies, vol 20. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 7–22
Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, Japan (2002–2004) Survey results of investments for industrial
pollution control facilities
Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan (1977–2001) Survey results of investments for industrial
pollution control facilities. In Plant and equipment investment plans in major industries (Shuyo Sangyo
no Setsubi Toshi Keikaku), Ministry of finance printing bureau, Tokyo
Netherlands, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (1982–present) Milieukosten van bedrijven, Voorburg (1998–
Present data available at www.cbs.nl)
123
28 D. V. Aiken et al.
OECD, Economic analysis and statistics division (1995,1999) The oecd stan database for industrial analysis.
OECD, Paris
Pasurka C (2008) Perspectives on pollution abatement and competitiveness: theory, data, and analyses. Rev
Environ Econ Policy 2(2):194–218
Pyrwes M (1984) The cost in lost productivity of new regulation in the U.S. chemical industry. J Policy Model
6(3):411–419
Schreyer P, Suyker W (2002) Creation of the euro area: implications for economic statistics. OECD Statistics
Brief, February, No. 2
Shadbegian RJ, Gray WB (2006) Assessing multi-dimensional performance: environmental and economic
outcomes. J Product Anal 26(4):213–234
Shephard RW (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Shestalova V (2003) Sequential malmquist indices of productivity growth: an application to oecd industrial
activities. J Product Anal 19(2–3):211–226
Uno K (1987) Pollution prevention and environmental quality. In: Japanese industrial performance, Chapter
16. North Holland, New York, pp 271–310
Uno K (1995) Pollution prevention investment. In: Environmental options: accounting for sustainability.
Economy & environment, vol 10, Chapter 6. North Holland, New York, pp 143–198
U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office (1985) Environmental regulation and economic efficiency. US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1978–1996) Pollution abatement costs and expendi-
tures. Current Industrial Reports, MA200. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. http://
www.census.gov/prod/2/manmin/ma200x94.pdf
Valentini L (2003) Pollution abatement expenditures and international competitiveness: estimation of to-
tal factor productivity. Paper presented at the 12th annual conference of the european association of
environmental and resource economists, Bilbao, Spain, 28–30 June 2003
van Soest DP, List JA, Jeppesen T (2006) Shadow prices, environmental stringency, and international
competitiveness. Eur Econ Rev 50(5):1151–1167
123