Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:22:28.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-separability and substitutability among water pollutants: evidence from India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

Surender Kumar  and
Shunsuke Managi
Surender Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Business Economics, University of Delhi, India. Email: [email protected]
Shunsuke Managi
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, 6-6-20 Aramaki-Aza Aoba, Aoba-Ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan; and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. Tel: 81-45-339-3751. Fax: 81-22-795-4309. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The design and implementation of environmental policy often involve more than one pollutant, and must consider pollution as a byproduct of the production of marketable output. In this paper, we test the implicit assumption in the empirical literature that (1) production of marketable output, pollution and abatement are separable, and (2) different pollutants can be abated separately. Using unique plant-level data in India, we reject the null hypotheses of separability between marketable output and pollutants, and between different pollutants. Firms must incur abatement costs for reducing pollution levels. In addition, complement and substitute relationships between water pollutants are demonstrated with statistical significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 6 , December 2011 , pp. 709 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C.L. (1987), ‘The production process: inputs and wastes’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14: 1–12.Google Scholar
Baumol, W.J. and Oates, W.E. (1988), The Theory of Environmental Policy, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beavis, B. and Walker, M. (1979), ‘Interactive pollutants and joint abatement costs: achieving water quality standards with effluent charges’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6: 275–286.Google Scholar
Bellas, A.S. (1998), ‘Empirical evidence of advances in scrubber technology’, Resource and Energy Economics 20(4): 327–343.Google Scholar
Blackorby, C., Primont, D., and Russell, R.R. (1977), ‘On testing separability restrictions with flexible functional forms’, Journal of Econometrics 5: 195–209.Google Scholar
Blackorby, C. and Russell, R.R. (1989) ‘Will the real elasticity of substitution please stand up? (a comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima elasticities)’, American Economic Review 79(4): 882–888.Google Scholar
Burtraw, D., Krupnick, A., Palmer, K., Paul, A., Toman, M., and Bloyd, C. (2003), ‘Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the U.S. from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(3): 650–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbone, J.C. and Smith, V.K. (2008), ‘Evaluating policy interventions with general equilibrium externalities’, Journal of Public Economics 92: 1254–1274.Google Scholar
Carlson, C., Burtraw, D., Cropper, M., and Palmer, K. (2000), ‘Sulfur dioxide control by electric utilities: what are the gains from trade?’, Journal of Political Economy 108(6): 1292–1326.Google Scholar
Cheremisinoff, N.P. (2001), Handbook of Pollution Prevention Practices (Environmental Science and Pollution Control Series), Cambridge: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Coelli, T., Lauwers, L., and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2007), ‘Environmental efficiency measurement and the materials balance condition’, Journal of Productivity Analysis 28: 3–12.Google Scholar
Considine, T.J. and Larson, D.F. (2006), ‘The environment as a factor of production’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52 (3): 645–662.Google Scholar
CPCB (1995), Standards for Pollution Control, Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S., Huq, M., Wheeler, D., and Zhang, C. (2001), ‘Water pollution abatement by Chinese industry: cost estimates and policy implications’, Applied Economics 33: 547–557.Google Scholar
Dellink, R.B. (2005), Modelling the Costs of Environmental Policy: A Dynamic Applied General Equilibrium Assessment, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domazlicky, B.R. and Weber, W.L. (2004), ‘Does environmental protection lead to slower growth in the chemical industry?’, Environmental and Resource Economics 28: 301–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskeland, G.S. (1997), ‘Air pollution requires multi pollutant analysis: the case of Santiago, Chile’, American Journal of Agriculture Economics 79: 1636–1641.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lovell, C.A.K., and Yaisawarng, S. (1993), ‘Derivation of shadow prices for undesirable outputs – a distance function-approach’, Review of Economics and Statistics 75(2): 374–380.Google Scholar
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Noh, D.-W. and Weber, W.L. (2005), ‘Characteristics of a polluting technology: theory and practice’, Journal of Econometrics 126(2): 469–492.Google Scholar
Fujii, H., Kaneko, S., and Managi, S. (2010), ‘Changes in environmentally sensitive productivity and technological modernization in China's iron and steel industry in the 1990s’, Environment and Development Economics 15(4): 485–504.Google Scholar
Goldar, B.N., Misra, S., and Mukherji, B. (2001), ‘Water pollution abatement cost function: methodological issues and an application to small-scale factories in an industrial estate in India’, Environment and Development Economics 6: 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. (1993), ‘The econometric approach to efficiency analysis’, in Fried, H., Lovell, C.A.K. and Schmidt, S. (eds), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 68–119.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M. (2003), ‘Estimating regulation-induced substitution: the effect of the Clean Air Act on water and ground pollution’, American Economic Review 93(2): 442–448.Google Scholar
Huhtala, A. and Marklund, P.O. (2008), ‘Stringency of environmental targets in animal agriculture: shedding light on policy with shadow prices’, European Review of Agricultural Economics 35: 193–217.Google Scholar
Kumbakhar, S. and Lovell, C.A.K. (2000), Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolstad, C.D. and Turnovsky, M.H.L. (1998), ‘Cost functions and nonlinear prices: estimating a technology with quality-differentiated inputs’, Review of Economics and Statistics 80(3): 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S. and Managi, S. (2009), ‘Energy price-induced and exogenous technological change: assessing the economic and environmental outcomes’, Resource and Energy Economics 31(4): 334–353.Google Scholar
Kumar, S. and Managi, S. (2010), ‘Environment and productivities in developed and developing countries: the case of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide’, Journal of Environmental Management 91(5): 1580–1592.Google Scholar
Kuper, G.H. and Van Soest, D.P. (2003), ‘Path-dependency and input substitution: implications for energy policy modelling’, Energy Economics 25(4): 397–407.Google Scholar
Managi, S., Opaluch, J.J., Jin, D., and Grigalunas, T.A. (2005), ‘Environmental regulations and technological change in the offshore oil and gas industry’, Land Economics 81(2): 303–319.Google Scholar
Montero, J.-P. (2001), ‘Multipollutant markets’, RAND Journal of Economics 32(4): 762–774.Google Scholar
Moslener, U. and Requate, T. (2007), ‘Optimal abatement in dynamic multi-pollutant problems when pollutants can be complements or substitutes’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 31: 2293–2316.Google Scholar
Murty, M.N., James, A.J., and Misra, S. (1999), Economics of Water Pollution: The Indian Experience, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murty, M.N. and Kumar, S. (2002), ‘Measuring cost of environmentally sustainable industrial development in India: a distance function approach’, Environmental and Development Economics 7: 467–486.Google Scholar
Murty, M.N. and Kumar, S. (2004), Environmental and Economic Accounting for Industry, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murty, M.N., Kumar, S., and Dhavala, K.K. (2007), ‘Measuring environmental efficiency of industry: a case study of thermal power generation in India’, Environmental and Resource Economics 38: 31–50.Google Scholar
Murty, M.N., Kumar, S., and Paul, M. (2006), ‘Environmental regulation, productive efficiency and cost of pollution abatement: a case study of sugar industry in India’, Journal of Environmental Management 79(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picazo-Tadeo, A.J. and Prior, D. (2009), ‘Environmental externalities and efficiency measurement’, Journal of Environmental Management 90: 3332–3339.Google Scholar
Reynaud, A. (2003), ‘An econometric estimation of industrial water demand in France’, Environmental and Resource Economics 25: 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmieman, E.C, van Ierland, E.C, and Hordijk, L. (2002), ‘Dynamic efficiency with multi-pollutants and multi-targets: the case of acidification and tropospheric ozone formation in Europe’, Environmental and Resource Economics 23(2): 133–148.Google Scholar
Schwabe, K.A. (1999), ‘The effects of separability on incentive based instrument performance’, Economics Letters 63(3): 377–380.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K. (1998), ‘Should pollution reductions count as productivity gains for agriculture?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 591–594.Google Scholar
Weaver, R.D. (1998), ‘Measuring productivity of environmentally interactive technologies’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 595–599.Google Scholar
Welch, E. and Barnum, D. (2009), ‘Joint environmental and cost efficiency analysis of electricity generation’, Ecological Economics 68(8–9): 2336–2343.Google Scholar
Wossink, G.A.A., Lansink, A.G.J.M. Oude, and Struik, P.C. (2001), ‘Non-separability and heterogeneity in integrated agronomic-economic analysis of non-point source pollution’, Ecological Economics 38: 345–357.Google Scholar
Yohe, G. (1976), ‘Substitution and the control of pollution: a comparison of effluent charges and. quantity standards under uncertainty’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3: 312–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar