Using Effluent Charges in Promoting Investment in Water Pollution Control Technology: A Model of Coordination Failure among Firms

Untreated wastewater being directly discharged into rivers is a very harmful environmental hazard that needs to be tackled urgently in many countries. In order to safeguard the river ecosystem and reduce water pollution, it is important to have an effluent charge policy that promotes the investment of wastewater treatment technology by domestic firms. This paper considers the strategic interaction between the government and the domestic firms regarding the investment in the wastewater treatment technology and the design of optimal e­ffluent charge policy that should be implemented. In this model, the higher is the proportion of non-investing firms, the higher would be the probability of having to incur an e­ffluent charge and the higher would be that charge. On one hand the government needs to impose a sufficiently strict policy to ensure that firms have strong incentive to invest. On the other hand, it cannot be too strict that it drives out firms which cannot afford to invest in such expensive technology. The paper analyses the factors that affect the probability of investment in this technology. It also explains the difficulty of imposing a strict environment policy in countries that have too many small firms which cannot afford to invest unless subsidised.

An interregional input-output analysis of the pollution content of trade flows and environmental trade balances between five states in the US Mid-West

In this paper we attempt an empirical application of the multi-region input-output (MRIO) method in order to enumerate the pollution content of interregional trade flows between five Mid-West regions/states in the US –Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin – and the rest of the US. This allows us to analyse some very important issues in terms of the nature and significance of interregional environmental spillovers within the US Mid-West and the existence of pollution ‘trade balances’ between states. Our results raise questions in terms of the extent to which authorities at State level can control local emissions where they are limited in the way some emissions can be controlled, particularly with respect to changes in demand elsewhere in the Mid-West and US. This implies a need for policy co-ordination between national and state level authorities in the US to meet emissions reductions targets. The existence of an environmental trade balances between states also raises issues in terms of net losses/gains in terms of pollutants as a result of interregional trade within the US and whether, if certain activities can be carried out using less polluting technology in one region relative to others, it is better for the US as a whole if this type of relationship exists.

A comparison of results from MRIO and interregional computable general equilibrium (CGE) analyses of the impacts of a positive demand shock on the ‘CO2 trade balance’ between Scotland and the rest of the UK

In previous work we have applied the environmental multi-region input-output (MRIO) method proposed by Turner et al (2007) to examine the ‘CO2 trade balance’ between Scotland and the Rest of the UK. In McGregor et al (2008) we construct an interregional economy-environment input-output (IO) and social accounting matrix (SAM) framework that allows us to investigate methods of attributing responsibility for pollution generation in the UK at the regional level. This facilitates analysis of the nature and significance of environmental spillovers and the existence of an environmental ‘trade balance’ between regions. While the existence of significant data problems mean that the quantitative results of this study should be regarded as provisional, we argue that the use of such a framework allows us to begin to consider questions such as the extent to which a devolved authority like the Scottish Parliament can and should be responsible for contributing to national targets for reductions in emissions levels (e.g. the UK commitment to the Kyoto Protocol) when it is limited in the way it can control emissions, particularly with respect to changes in demand elsewhere in the UK. However, while such analysis is useful in terms of accounting for pollution flows in the single time period that the accounts relate to, it is limited when the focus is on modelling the impacts of any marginal change in activity. This is because a conventional demand-driven IO model assumes an entirely passive supply-side in the economy (i.e. all supply is infinitely elastic) and is further restricted by the assumption of universal Leontief (fixed proportions) technology implied by the use of the A and multiplier matrices. In this paper we argue that where analysis of marginal changes in activity is required, a more flexible interregional computable general equilibrium approach that models behavioural relationships in a more realistic and theory-consistent manner, is more appropriate and informative. To illustrate our analysis, we compare the results of introducing a positive demand stimulus in the UK economy using both IO and CGE interregional models of Scotland and the rest of the UK. In the case of the latter, we demonstrate how more theory consistent modelling of both demand and supply side behaviour at the regional and national levels affect model results, including the impact on the interregional CO2 ‘trade balance’.

Negative investment in China: financing constraints and restructuring versus growth

This paper attempts to address a puzzle in China’s investment pattern: despite high aggregate investment and remarkable economic growth, negative net investment is commonly found at the microeconomic level. Using a large firm-level dataset, we test three hypotheses to explain the existence and extent of negative investment in each ownership group: what we term the efficiency (or restructuring) hypothesis, the (lack of) financing hypothesis, and the (slow) growth hypothesis. Our panel data probit estimations shows that negative investment by state-owned firms can be explained mainly by inefficiency: owing to over-investment or mis-investment in the past, these firms have had to restructure and to get rid of obsolete capital in the face of increasing competition and hardening budgets. The financing explanation holds for private firms, which have had to divest in order to raise capital. However, rapid economic growth weighs against both effects in all types of firms, with a larger impact for firms in the private and foreign sectors. A tobit model, estimated to examine the determinants of the amount of negative investment, yields similar conclusions.