Los efectos de la regulación ambiental en la competitividad

Un par de papers recientes, y a primera vista contradictorios. El de Greenstone et al, sobre EEUU, dice que la regulación ha sido dañina, bajando la productividad total de los factores. Habrá que leerlo, porque lo que podría pasar es que haya un sesgo inicial, y es que las empresas localizadas en las áreas más contaminadas (y por tanto reguladas) fueran ya las menos capaces de mejorar su productividad.:

The economic costs of environmental regulations have been widely debated since the U.S. began to restrict pollution emissions more than four decades ago. Using detailed production data from nearly 1.2 million plant observations drawn from the 1972-1993 Annual Survey of Manufactures, we estimate the effects of air quality regulations on manufacturing plants’ total factor productivity (TFP) levels. We find that among surviving polluting plants, stricter air quality regulations are associated with a roughly 2.6 percent decline in TFP. The regulations governing ozone have particularly large negative effects on productivity, though effects are also evident among particulates and sulfur dioxide emitters. Carbon monoxide regulations, on the other hand, appear to increase measured TFP, especially among refineries. The application of corrections for the confounding of price increases and output declines and sample selection on survival produce a 4.8 percent estimated decline in TFP for polluting plants in regulated areas. This corresponds to an annual economic cost from the regulation of manufacturing plants of roughly $21 billion, which is about 8.8 percent of manufacturing sector profits in this period.

En cambio, el de Yang et al para Taiwan dice lo contrario, que la hipótesis de Porter se mantiene, y que efectivamente la regulación ambiental hace a las empresas más productivas.

This paper examines whether stringent environmental regulations induce more R&D and promote further productivity in Taiwan. Using an industry-level panel dataset for the 1997–2003 period, empirical results show that pollution abatement fees, a proxy for environmental regulations, is positively related to R&D expenditure, implying that stronger environment protection induces more R&D. On the other hand, pollution abatement capital expenditures do not have a statistically significant influence on R&D. Further evaluation of the influence of induced R&D by environment regulations on industrial productivity shows a significant positive association between them. This finding supports the Porter hypothesis that more stringent environmental regulations may enhance rather than lower industrial competitiveness.

¿Quién tendrá razón? El hecho de que sean dos países distintos permite pensar que los dos pueden tenerla. Por otra parte, como que me da cierta prevención la ideología de partida de Greenstone, List y su colega (que son Chicago puros y por tanto antiregulación). En fin, que habrá que leerlos con atención.