Elsevier

Ecological Economics

Volume 70, Issue 11, 15 September 2011, Pages 2201-2213
Ecological Economics

Analysis
Income inequality and the development of environmental technologies

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.027Get rights and content

Abstract

Within rich countries, a large dispersion in the capacity of generating environmental innovations appears correlated to the level of inequality. Previous works analyze the relationship between inequality and environmental quality in a static setting. This paper builds a dynamic model more suitable to analyze technological externalities driven by the emergence of a new demand for green products. Under fairly general assumptions on technology and preferences, we show that: 1. the relationship between inequality and environmental innovation is highly non-linear and crucially depends on per-capita income; 2. an excessive inequality harms the development of environmental technologies especially in rich countries. Key to our results is the fact that externalities generated by pioneer consumers of green products benefit the entire population only for relatively low income distances. The empirical analysis robustly confirms our theoretical results, that is: whereas for rich countries inequality negatively affects the diffusion of innovations, per-capita income is paramount in poorer ones.

Highlights

► The dynamic model analyzes the externalities driven by a new demand for green goods. ► The relation inequality/env. innov. is non-linear and depends on per-capita income. ► An excessive ineq. harms the development of env. tech. especially in rich countries. ► The empirical analysis robustly confirms our theoretical results.

Introduction

The development of technologies aimed at preserving the environment represents an increasingly urgent priority in the political agenda. Among rich countries, a large cross-country variation in environmental regulation and in the capacity of generating environmental-friendly innovations casts doubt on the relevance of the so-called environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis (Grossman and Krueger, 1995), according to which, above certain income levels, economic growth is no more harmful for the environment but rather enables a progressive reductions of emissions per capita. In general, the common consensus of recent empirical analyses (Dinda, 2004, Harbaugh et al., 2002, Stern, 2004) is that the inverted U-shaped relationship holds for local pollutants, whereas no clear patterns emerge for global pollutants (i.e. CO2 emissions) involving more indirect and long-term costs. Seminal theoretical studies suggest that North–south income and institutional differences can hamper the required reduction of global emissions (e.g. Chichilnisky, 1994, Chichilnisky and Heal, 1994, Lopez, 1994). As corollary of this view, income differences among countries might also affect local environmental quality in rich ones throughout the relocation of pollution-intensive activities in poor ones, the intensification of natural resources' trade and an indirect influence on the chosen level of environmental regulation (Dinda, 2004, Roca, 2003, Suri and Chapman, 1998).

Inequality within country also matters in framing constraints and incentives for investing in environmental innovations, which represents the main, culturally acceptable, way to invert the vicious circle between growth and environmental degradation. On the one hand, recent works use a political-economy argument to claim that the mechanical process of growth is not sufficient to generate pro-environmental policies and investments in green R&D (Magnani, 2000, Torras and Boyce, 1998). On the other hand, if the consumption of eco-friendly products increases with income, a standard “aggregation argument” would lead to the opposite conclusion, namely that higher income inequality fosters eco-friendly consumption patterns (Heerink et al., 2001). Accordingly, income inequality has a contrasting effect on the two forces that are recognized to drive environmental innovations (see Beise and Rennings, 2005): regulation and the demand for green products. From the empirical side, since the two effects tend to offset each other, no particular correlation should be observed between environmental innovation and inequality.

The purpose of this paper is to extend the analysis of the relationship between income inequality and the diffusion of green products to a dynamic framework where the development of environmental innovations is demand-driven. In particular, the emergence of a sizable demand for green products allows to gradually generate profit opportunities in key sectors such as transport, agriculture, construction and energy. The scaling-up of clean production methods in these sectors is associated to relevant non-linearities in so far as the development of the appropriate infrastructures favors the replacements of polluting consumption patterns with green ones.

Our prior claim is that many environmental-friendly goods and services are produced and consumed locally (i.e. eco-building, renewable energy, recycling, bio-food, etc.), hence making internal markets particularly important to develop the technological know-how required to a large scale diffusion of these goods. Obviously, this claim does not apply to global emissions provided their public good nature. Therefore, our results should be interpreted having in mind that inequality within country is more likely to affect the search of technological solutions for local rather than for global problems.

As well-documented in the literature on demand-driven innovations (e.g. Bertola et al., 2006, Von Hippel, 1988), pioneer consumers have a higher capacity to buy initially more expensive green products, hence they trigger innovations that, throughout price reductions, might enable low-budget consumers to adopt these products (pioneer consumer effect, PC). On the other hand, however, an “excessive income distance” between the two types of consumers does not allow the entire society to benefit from the externalities generated by rich consumers (consumption polarization effect, CP2). Note that this positive trickle-down externality can stem from general consumption externalities (imitation behavior, demonstration effects, network externalities, etc.) and/or technological externalities. Here, we focus on the former effect in order to emphasize the role of inequality in shaping long-term technological advantages.

In order to fix these ideas in a stylized way, we develop a simple theoretical model that establishes a weak asymmetry between green and non-green wants, being only the latter essential in an Inada sense. It will be shown that, under general assumptions on preferences and technological change, the effect of inequality on the diffusion of the new good is highly non-linear with the PC effect prevailing on the CP one for low levels of per-capita income, whereas the reverse occurs for high levels of per-capita income. Indeed, inequality harms the full development of environmental innovations, especially in those countries closer to the technological frontier and hence more likely to perform innovations (Aghion and Howitt, 2004). Due to a high income inequality, the positive externality brought about by the consumption of the rich might not be enough to enable the poor to buy eco-friendly goods, thereby the political-economy and the aggregation argument should go in the same direction. Moreover, high inequality not only pins down the emergence of appropriate environmental regulations, but also hampers the development of knowledge complementary to environmental-friendly behavior. Finally, an empirical validation of our model robustly confirms that inequality is strongly negatively related to various proxies of environmental innovation. This effect is particularly strong for richer countries whereas for poorer countries per-capita income is paramount.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 connects the literature on demand and innovation to the one on inequality and environmental quality. Section 3 presents the model, the main theoretical results and possible extensions. Section 4 is devoted to an empirical validation of the model whereas Section 5 concludes.

Section snippets

Related Literature

The relationship between environmental quality and income inequality can be established looking at both sides of the causality nexus. Whereas the analysis of the distributive impact of environmental policies is becoming a key issue at stake for public economics (e.g. OECD, 1994, OECD, 2004), the issue of how inequality affects the level of emissions and of environmental degradation has been first investigated in relation to the debate about the North–south distribution of abatement costs and

The Model

In this section, we develop a simple model to analyze the role of the income distribution in the process of diffusion of a new good differing from the old one as it allows to satisfy a new want.6 In particular, the new good enables agents to enjoy the same direct utility of the old one plus an additional utility

Empirical Validation

In this section, we provide an empirical validation to our theoretical argument that, especially for rich countries, environmental innovations and the diffusion of green products are fostered by a more equal income distribution. A comprehensive analysis of the relationship between inequality and environmental innovations is carried on by considering the size of eco-industries and different indicators of environmental innovations, such as public green R&D and patents in selected fields.

Concluding Remarks

The paper presents a demand-driven innovation approach to look at the relationship between inequality and environmental quality. We showed that more equal countries appear also the as ones having a comparative advantage in developing clean production methods. Our dynamic model enriches previous analyses in three directions. First, the externalities generated by pioneer consumers of green products benefit the entire population only for relatively low income distances. As a result, the

References (59)

  • N. Heerink et al.

    Income inequality and the environment: aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets curves

    Ecological Economics

    (2001)
  • A. Jaffe et al.

    Technological change and the environment

  • M. Kahn

    A household level environmental Kuznets curve

    Economics Letters

    (1998)
  • R. Lopez

    The environment as a factor of production: the effects of economic growth and trade liberalization

    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

    (1994)
  • E. Magnani

    The environmental Kuznets curve, environmental protection policy and income distribution

    Ecological Economics

    (2000)
  • D. Popp

    International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the U.S., Japan, and Germany

    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

    (2006)
  • J. Roca

    Do individual preferences explain the environmental Kuznets curve?

    Ecological Economics

    (2003)
  • D. Rothman

    Environmental Kuznets curves real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption-based approaches

    Ecological Economics

    (1998)
  • L.A. Scruggs

    Political and economic inequality and the environment

    Ecological Economics

    (1998)
  • D. Stern

    The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve

    World Development

    (2004)
  • V. Suri et al.

    Economic growth, trade and the environment: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve

    Ecological Economics

    (1998)
  • M. Torras et al.

    Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve

    Ecological Economics

    (1998)
  • P. Aghion et al.

    Appropriate growth policy: a unified framework

    Journal of the European Economic Association

    (2004)
  • C. Antonelli

    Localized knowledge, percolation processes and information networks

    Journal of Evolutionary Economics

    (1996)
  • G. Bertola et al.

    Income Distribution in Macroeconomic Models

    (2006)
  • J. Boyce

    Inequality and Environmental Protection

  • S. Cantono et al.

    A percolation model of eco-innovation diffusion: the relationship between diffusion, learning economies and subsidies

  • G. Chichilnisky

    North–south trade and the global environment

    The American Economic Review

    (1994)
  • G. Chichilnisky

    Development and global finance: the case for an International Bank for Environmental Settlements

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text