Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea that properly designed environmental regulations can improve a firm s competitiveness while simultaneously contributing to a cleaner environment through the development of so-called win-win innovations (i.e., that reduce environmental damage while simultaneously increasing profits) is usually credited to Porter (1991). Numerous studies have since attempted to assess the validity of the concept, with mixed results. This paper contributes to this debate by surveying a nearly forgotten body of literature written in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that discussed the impact of market incentives on the development of valuable by-products out of industrial waste. Based on the opinions held by several industrial chemists, engineers, technical journalists and economists, the development of win-win manufacturing practices seems to have been primarily the result of the profit motive, although actual or potential legal actions based on private property rights and/or government regulations occasionally triggered this process. After reviewing some important historical writings on the latter issue, a suggestion is made that the best way to craft well-designed environmental regulations is perhaps to return to a private property rights approach to mitigating pollution problems whenever possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".