Environmental Regulation and Productivity: New Findings on the Porter Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an empirical analysis of the relationship between the stringency of environmental regulation and total factor productivity (TFP) growth in the Quebec manufacturing sector. This allows us to investigate more fully the Porter hypothesis in three directions. First, the dynamic aspect of the hypothesis is captured through the use of lagged regulation variables. Second, we argue that the hypothesis is more relevant for more polluting sectors. Third, we argue that the hypothesis is more relevant for sectors which are more exposed to international competition. Our empirical results suggest that: 1) the contemporaneous impact of environmental regulation on productivity is negative, 2) the opposite result is observed with lagged regulation variables and 3) this effect is stronger in a sub-group of industries which are more exposed to international competition. Ce texte presente une analyse empirique de la relation entre l'ampleur de la reglementation environnementale et la productivite totale des facteurs en utilisant des donnees du secteur manufacturier quebecois. Cet exercice nous permet de pousser l'analyse de l'hypothese porterienne dans trois directions. Premierement, l'introduction de variables reglementaires retardees nous permet de mieux capter l'aspect dynamique de l'hypothese. Deuxiemement, nous postulons que l'hypothese de Porter a plus de chance d'etre valide dans les secteurs tres polluants. Troisiemement, nous postulons qu'il sera de meme dans les secteurs plus exposes a la concurrence exterieure. Nos resultats empiriques suggerent que: 1) l'impact de la variable contemporaine de reglementation est negatif; 2) le resultat contraire est observe pour les variables de reglementation retardees et 3) cet effet est plus fort dans les secteurs les plus exposes a la concurrence exterieure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".