Sustainable development, innovation and ecological tax

reforms: linking global and local

perspectives

Massimiliano Mazzanti

OPENLOC workshop December 12th 2011

UniversitA’ di Ferrara

SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY IS AN ‘INVESTING SOCIETY’

Sustainability I: Capital based economic view

Capital shares at different income levels

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

low income medium income high income

income level

manmade

natural

intangible

Applied estimations genuine saving(world bank)

• Kazakistan• 30% GDp gross saving• 18% net saving• Saving Rises to 22% including education

investments• - 10% including all natural resource depreciations

• Negative genuine saving

Holland vs Kenya capital stocks shares of wealth

• Holland– 78% Human capital + institutions

• Of which 36% schooling; 57% institutions, property rights

– 3% natural capital (of which 57% land)– 19% produced man made capital

• Kenya– 46% natural capital (1/2 crops)– 13% man made– 42% intangible including human capital

Hamilton adjusted rule (2007)• U/ t= Uc G(r- G/G)

– G= genuine saving (net saving)

• G=0 Hartwick rule U/ t=0• G=Y/G fixed share• Growth in net income

– (C+G)/(C+G) = net saving (constant)* MPK (r)/α– MPK 0.07 o 7%– α = non nat resource share, around 0.7 average– So (C+G)/(C+G) = net saving (constant)* 0.1

• Growth 10% of net saving

Ferreira Hamilton Vincent (2008)

• Current saving future consumption– Gross -0.76*– Net save -0.72*– Green saving 0.558**– Pop adjusted 0.560**

• Ferreira Vincent add developing countries

Holland vs Kenya capital stocks shares of wealth

• Holland– 78% Human capital + institutions

• Of which 36% schooling; 57% institutions, property rights

– 3% natural capital (of which 57% land)– 19% produced man made capital

• Kenya– 46% natural capital (1/2 crops)– 13% man made– 42% intangible including human capital

Ghana – decomposition of genuine saving

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

minus CO2 = Adj Net Saving

minus mineral depletion

minus forest depletion

minus depreciation

Gross + education

Gross saving

% of GNI

SD What matters is to accumulate an increasing stock of total capital forms

Key issues

• Sustainable development– Weak and strong economic perspectives– Daly idea of zero growth– Renewable and non renewable resources

• Environmental efficiency of economic systems– The critical role of innovation only engine for sustainaed

economic growth and sustainability (Solow models)– Sustanaibility and sustaianed growth entangled issues:

trade offs but also complementarities through the role of innovation

What is sustainable development?

• SD is the achievement of a sustained path of economic growth which does not undermine future generation possibilities of consumption

• We may define what “future generation” means– An orthodox economist would claim that this depends on

our time preference discount rate reasoning..– The higher the discount rate, depending on consumption

and oportunity costs factors, the less future benefits and costs are valued…

– r = pure time myopic preference + consumption growth; otherwise equals tha market oppotunity cost, the foregone benefit of an investment

• Recall that GNP=C+I• Recall that NetNP= GNP – depreciation of

capital• Capital stocks dynamics depends on

accumulation and depreciation

SD is linked to Total capital or natural capital?

• Total capital = manmade + human capital + natural capital

• Each capital stock is defined by a rate of growth, I – Deprec.

• If I=dep, then capital is steady• Y=(TOT-K)• Thus, a first intuitive golden rule for SD is that total K

should be at least constant, Inv should at least match depreciation..

• Genuine saving rule: INV >= depreciation

..but..

• This may imply a decreasing natural capital stock, if natK is substituted by other forms– This is the western country history– i.e. arab countries management of non renewable

resources– UK oil exploitation– In any case, rents from natural resource use

should be re-invested..

• Thus, weak sustainability may also imply a complete exhaustion of natural resources…

• Strong sustainability is instead stressing the critical role of some natural capital forms…irreversible losses…eco-systemic losses

• The genuine saving rule is applied to specific environmental assets– i.e. compensation projects– It works for renewable resources (forests, fishery..)– Striking difference between the management of non renew resources

(the problem is a correct price and a path of exploitation which takes into account the existence of an alternative backsyop technology) and renewable resources, which often posses use and non use values…

• SD is also possible in case a reduced amount of capital is inherited by future generations….

• …but this capital must be more productive..more efficient..• We go back to the role of environmental innovation in triggering higher

resource efficiency of the economy• A key issue is what he driving forces of innovation are:

– Prices (neoclassic view)– Policy which kind of policy…static reasoning demonstrate the higher

efficiency of green taxes and tradable permits (over CAC)…dynamic efficiency should also be higher for economic instruments, but it is more an empirical matter

– Firm internal strategies..Porter hp..firm gains from innovation in the long run, to achieve new competitive advantages…hp at macro and micro level

– A weak version of the hp claims that in the long run the policy costs are lower than the induced innovation gains…NET benefits..

..summing up..• SD depends on the decision on how much investing in each

period…(recall Y=C+I)..a part of the investment is in innovation (tech and organizational)

• ..but even sustained economic growth (Solow Model) is possible only in presence of technological change enhancing factor productivity..

• SD intrinsically depends on innovation, which is an investment, which also depends on economic growth..

• The possibility of achieving a SD path relies on the extent to which innovation investments are capable of reducing the impact of a sustained economic growth..

• This issue is known as Delinking: environmental impact from economic growth

Human Development Index (HDI)

Human Development Index (HDI)

IL’HDI introduce un modo nuovo di misurare lo sviluppo dei diversi paesi mondiali combinando insieme indicatori di:-Aspettativa di vita-Scolarizzazione-RedditoIn un unico indicatore sintetico. La principale novità di tale approccio è la capacità di esprimere, tramite una sola statistica, aspetti sociali ed economici dei diversi paesi. Lo scopo è quello di avere un indicatore più preciso del PIL pro capite per misurare lo sviluppo dei paesi.

Per la costruzione dell’HDI vengono creati dei pesi delle singole variabili prese in considerazione, che vanno poi a creare l’indicatore finale. L’HDI fissa il livello minimo e massimo per ogni dimensione e indica a che livello è posizionato ogni singolo paese all’interno di questo range (minimo è 0, massimo 1)

Education

• La componente relativa alla scolarizzazione è misurata da due indici. Il primo è rappresentato dal numero di anni medio di scuola per adulti di 25 anni e il secondo dal numero di anni attesi di scuola per i bambini al primo anno di scuola.

• Expected years of schooling estimates are based on enrolment by age at all levels of education and population of official school age for each level of education.

Aspettativa di vita

• L’aspettativa di vita è calcolata normalizzando la serie usando un valore minimo di 20 anni e massimo di 83.4. Questo è dato dal massimo valore possibile registrato per la serie di tutti i paesi analizzati dal 1980-2010. Di conseguenza, la componente di longevità dentro all’HDI per un paese con aspettativa di vita pari a 55 anni è di 0.552.

Ricchezza

• For the wealth component, the goalpost for minimum income is $100 (PPP) and the maximum is $107,721 (PPP), both estimated during the same period, 1980-2011.

• References: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/

Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)

Il rapporto UNDP del 2010, introduce per la prima volta una versione dell’HDI che tenga conto della distribuzione dei redditi e del concetto di disuguaglianza, chiamato Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI). Sotto l’ipotesi di perfetta distribuzione dei redditi l’IHDI e l’HDI sono uguali, ma l’IHDI si discosta dall’HDI (diventa minore) quando l’uguaglianza viene meno. In altri termini, l’IDHI può essere considerato come il reale livello di sviluppo umano raggiunto da un paese, mentre l’HDI può essere visto come il livello di sviluppo umano potenziale che un paese potrebbe raggiungere se non vi fosse disuguaglianza. References: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ihdi/

SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY THAT ‘DE-COUPLES’ ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE FROM GROWTH

Sustainability II: efficient growth

CO2 emission intensity of GDP and GDP per capita: World, 1950-2000

0,15

0,17

0,19

0,21

0,23

0,25

0,27

0,29

0,31

0,33

CO

2 em

issi

on

per

un

it o

f G

DP

00

0 m

etr

ic to

ns

of C

pe

r m

illio

n $

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

5.500

6.000

6.500

GD

P p

er c

apit

a

CO2 emission intensity of GDP GDP per capita (1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars)

CO2/GDP intensity - 42% over 1950-2000• GDP per capita: three times higher over1950-2000

2040

6080

100

Em

issi

ons

(199

0=10

0)

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Year

CO2 NOxSOxITALY

High growth

Delinking and Kuznets curves

Economic drivers

Environmental pressure

Policy effect?

Recoupling possibility (?)

Relative delinking

(if any)

Absolute delinking

Turning point

Delinking

• Advanced economic systems have been characterised by a decreasing intensity of energy and materials per unit of output, driven by technological dynamics and regulatory pressures. OECD recently published a document (OECD, 2002) containing an updated evidence on the de-linking from economic growth, concerning diverse environmental indicators, such as climate change, air pollution, water quality, waste management, and material use.

• Delinking may occur on a relative basis (the elasticity of the environmental impact indicator with respect to an economic driver is positive, but less than unity) or on an absolute basis (negative elasticity).

• The assessment of both de-linking processes can be referred to the mostly applied research field concerning Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC).

• The hypothesis derives from the original analysis of Kuznets on the relationship between income level and income distribution

• The EKC hypothesis is shortly that for many environmental impacts, an inverted U-shaped relationships between per capita income and pollution is documented.

• The concentration of a certain pollutant first increases with income/production, reflecting a scale effect, more or less proportional, then eventually starts to decrease, de-linking from income even on an absolute basis.

• More specifically, the hypothesis predicts that the “environmental income elasticity” decreases monotonically with income, and that it eventually changes its sign from positive to negative, thus defining a turning point for the inverted U-shaped relationship.

• It does not derive from a theoretical model, it is an intuitive conceptual approach, inductive in nature..though some theoretical explanations have emerged…

EKC motivations• Supply side

– Technology driven by economic growth (profits and investments..)– The share of cleaner activities in GDP increases with the scale of the economy (scale +

composition effects)– As scarcity increases, market prices should reflect it..self-regulatory mechanism?– Environmental policy more likely in a developed economy economic and political

conditions needed– Property right enforcement (policy issue)

• Demand side– Environmental quality is a normal luxury good (as culture)..higher incomes mean higher

WTP for the environmental services..higher taxes are possible, new markets are profitable..

– Preferences change as the society develops..the marginal value of consumption is positive but decreasing

– Environmental costs are increasing even steeply…growth benefits decreasing….even a simple marginal cost-benefit scheme may explain why delinking may occur

• As it is evident, many forces play their role, in the interplay between supply and demand, and between policy and spontaneous market dynamics

Policy relevance

• The EKC evidence may support the idea that no policy is needed…market forces and market dynamics are self-sufficient in inverting the income-environment link

• BUT the environmental impact may be higher than what is defined as sustainable…policy efforts are needed to support and correct markets..affecting the shape of the EKC

• Empirical evidence, which has mainly concerned air emissions, is still ambiguous. Some pollutants show a turning point, though it shared view that some critical externalities, like CO2 and waste flows, are monotonically rising with income. At best, relative de-linking may be occurring (Stern, 2004).

• Air quality indicators– Local air quality (CO, sulfur, PM) seem to show an inverted

U-shape with income.– Global pollutants either rise monotonically with income or

eventually present very high turning point (not reached if not by US)

– * private/public goods as far as countries are concerned..free riding on global commons policy needed

• Water indicators– The turning point is generally higher– EKC for some indicators (local issues)– N shape? (Borghesi, 1999)

waste

• Empirical evidence on Delinking concerning environmental waste indicators is probably the scarcest. Contributions providing results for waste are rare. Cole et al. (1997) find no evidence for an inverted U-shape EKC curve concerning municipal waste

• See the Mazzanti-Zoboli paper (2005) on waste and delinking…

• There is currently no evidence concerning de-linking with respect to primary sources of waste in Europe (i.e. municipal and packaging waste), which have been targeted by waste-oriented European Directives aimed at reducing diverse environmental externalities associated to waste production and disposal

Some evidence

• Turning points 2003$/per capita (international studies)– CO2: 37000-57000– CO 16000– Nitrates 25-41000– Nitrogen oxide 25-29000– Sulfur dioxide 10000– Sulfur dioxide (trans) 12-13000– Suspended particulates 12-13000

Water pollution

• Differentiated EKC evidence by pollutants• From 3400$ for nitrates to 17700$ for lead• All other pollutants (cadmium, fecal coliforms,

oxygen, arsenic, sulfur dioxide…) around 8000-13000

Deforestation• Some studies, but:

– Low data quality– Deforestation is a complex issue: many drivers play a role

• Evidence for tropical countries, latin america, africa– 9000 and 8000$ for Latin america and africa in 2001..higher than most

country level around 5000– Other study 10000-12000 in 2003$– Other evidence (Panayotou and others) find lower turning points

occuring at 1000-3000$...but we recall that the environmental peak matters…

– Panayotou also argues that the most dramatic impact overall occurs between 1000 and 3000 per capita (China, India, Africa...)

• The first methodological problem for the applied analysis is how specifying the EKC functional relationship. There is no consensus on it.

• Some authors use second order polynomial, others have estimated third and even forth order polynomials, comparing different specifications for relative robustness. It is worth noting that neither the quadratic nor cubic function can be considered a full realistic representation of the income-environment relationship.

• The cubic implies that environmental degradation will tend to plus or minus infinity as income increases, the quadratic implies that environmental degradation could eventually tend to zero. The issue is thus highly unresolved.

• Shobee (2004) suggests a third order polynomial specification as more realistic relationship between environmental degradation and income per capita. This supports the credence of a logistic shape, wherein environmental degradation first accelerates, then decelerates, and finally falls.

• Marginal environmental degradation is thus not modelled as constant. The issue still remains highly unresolved, with the EKC hypothesis relying mainly on empirical evidence. The theoretical foundations of the EKC are still ambiguous, though some contributions have emerged (Andreoni and Levinson, 2001).

• Third or forth level polynomial could also lead to N rather than U shaped curves, opening new problematic issues in understanding the income-environment phenomenon for policymaking.

• This N shape is justified by a non-linear effect by the scale of economic activity on the environment, which is difficulty to prove.

• Finally, the use of the income factor only, without quadratic and cubic terms, would collapse the EKC analysis to the basic decoupling analysis.

• For a simple presentation of EKC with a discussion of the core hypothesis see De Bruyn et al. (1998) and Stern (2004).

• The aforementioned delinking hypothesis is tested by specifying a proper reduced form usual in the EKC field (Stern, 2004).– panel data framework, where the relative fit of fixed effect and

random effect models is compared by the Hausman statistic– it allows the treatment of unobserved effects..but rare..– Cross section frame (usually OCSE, world bank data..)..endogenity

issue…causality relationship…???– The need to move the analysis from cross country to single country

and regional analysis..cross country analysis may hide some EKC specificity..we just estimate mean values…no policy value..

The hypotheses on Delinking are thus tested by estimating a reduced form regression model (i.e. waste):

• log(waste/N)= 0i + t + 1Log(Consumption/GDP) it + 2 Log(Consumption/GDP)2 it + 3 Log(Consumption/GDP)3 it + ei

• Where the first two terms are intercept parameters, which vary across countries and years (in a panel frame).

Literature review• An extensive literature has developed since the early 90s…• Biased on emissions at macro level…good availability…but rough

data..need of panel regional studies…• Let’s see and comment some key works..• The main objective is the finding of a turning point…• …but even the presence of a demonstrated turning point may not assure

a Sustainable path..– Irreversible losses over a certain environmental impact (critical threshold)– Developed and non developed countries…may the world economy sustain the

impact of a EKC path in developing countries equal to that experienced by western economies?

– The problem of consequential developemnt….with scarce resources… Innovation must be transfered in order to “cut” the developing countries EKC…this is a crucial issue within Kyoto

List and Gallet (1999), Ecolec• Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide for 1929-1994,

panel data• US State level• They underline:

– Evidence at US state level– The issue of “omitted variables”..when including additional

explanatory variables EKC evidence changes…– State level evidence is needed..they find that states with

urban areas and more densely populated show a turning point at lower income levels..more policy attention?

Harbaugh et al (2001), NBER paper

• They also test whether EKC evidence changes when the set of explanatory factors is extended, in addition to income terms…– Policy– Country/state features (weather, pop density, industrial/rural..)– Other control variables– TRADE intensity

• Evidence may change even when – the set of countries is changed– The number of years is different

• They show that for SO2, smoke and total susp part. The GDP/pollution relationship is sensitive to both sample seelction and empirical specification

• No EKC evidence

TRADE

• Some authors claim that for some pollutants the EKC evidence may only imply that more polluting activities are moved to other countries from western to developing countries

Markandya et al (2004), FEEM• This is a EU12 specific study using a long time series..probably

the most effective way of estimating EKC• Sulfur emissions 1850-1999: top value for 9 countries during

1970-1985• Panel analysis:

– Best fir with fourth order polynomial– Two turning points: 7000$ and 25000$ (lower emissions) per capita

income– Individual country analysis show different model fits and different

turning points• Then, UK only to account for the effect of Acts/regulations on

emissions..including a dummy in policy years..no impact

McPherson et al (2005), ECOL-ECON

• EKC and Threatened species..new issue• Cross country data..poor data availability• 113 countries in 2000• Dep var: % of threatened species in 2000 + extinct in 1990-

1999• Results:

– For birds and mammals, the curve seems rising up to around 10000-15000$, then species classified as threatened decreases

– Population density negatively impacts– Islamic and post-communist and communist countries have more

species as threatened..property rights definition? Green policies in democratic countries…this opens a new public choice political issue (growth-democracy-environmental quality..what is the causal link?)

European waste case study (Mazzanti and Zoboli, 2005)

• Results indicate that stronger efforts are needed in order to increase the waste-oriented efficiency of economic processes. They confirm the fact that, concerning primary waste issues, even relative de-linking is questioned on a average European level.

• Environmental policy makers should remain hesitant about the idea of economic growth as self-sufficient driving force of environmental improvements, the reality is much more complex for most environmental indicators.

• The income elasticity of primary non hazardous waste flows in observed European countries is likely to be, or become in the medium term, less than one, but it is certainly not negative

Final points• Different polynomial specifications are tested by including as • (i) dependant variable waste per capita and waste in absolute

terms, • (ii) independent variables either household consumption or

GDP per capita, thus testing the hypothesis which indicates that consumption is a more appropriate driver for waste.

• In fact, recent studies (Rothman, 1998; EEA, 2003a,b) point out that for municipal and packaging waste the proper economic driver/indicator is not GDP, but household consumption instead. This is a key issue on both conceptual and statistical grounds.

..from EKC to environmental Innovation

• The EKC framework has confirmed the need of triggering innovation and then transferring innovation to industrializing countries…

• since property rights definition, market functioning,env. policy and income are four main sources of innovation

• Interesting study by Komen et al (1997) on the relationship between income and public R&D in environmental protection activities (not abatement)– They find an income elasticity not different from one– It shows the relevancy of the income R&D innovation growth

+ SD complex set of dynamic links

ECOLOGICAL TAX REFORMS AS POLICY SHOCKS TO SPUR SUSTAINABILITY AND GROWTH BY INNOVATION

Ecological tax reforms

Co2 trends and TIME RELATED EVENTS (OIL shocks, Policy) EU south

-.5

0.5

1lo

g(C

O2 p

er

capita)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000year

lco2pc fitted_step93fitted_ramp93 fitted_step97

fitted_ramp97

North america and Oceania

.6.8

11.2

1.4

log(C

O2 p

er

capita)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000year

lco2pc fitted_step93fitted_ramp93 fitted_step97

fitted_ramp97

Mazzanti & Musolesi FEEM paper 2010

Co2 trends, EU North

.7.8

.91

1.1

1.2

log(C

O2 p

er

capita)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000year

lco2pc fitted_step93fitted_ramp93 fitted_step97

fitted_ramp97

ETR? In Scandinavia, UK, Holland..

After 1995, env policy in the EU did not hamper exports, often there is a + correlation… Costantini & Mazzanti, 2011, Research Policy

Ecological tax reforms ETR

• Shift fiscal burden from labour to ‘things’ and assets

• Carbon tax and other taxes may generate 2-3% GDP in revenue• Andersen et al. (EEA) Estimate overall 35 billions in

Italy (event on ETR next week at the Treasury!)• (false) problems

– Inflationary?– Regressive? (VAT..)– Reduce competitiveness….

Very Low inflation , stagnation, high unemployement

A paradise for ETR implementation !

!!!!!(EU) Fiscal stimulus is needed!! Source: Prometeia, october 2011

Energy intensity

GHG

The case for ETR in Italy

GERD total

Two optionsLabour /social security

tax cuts Increase labor demand of

unskilled, women and young

Short run aggregate demand impacts

Not a long run growth fact

Innovation oriented reycling. Energy efficiency stimulus Through creation of trusts

and funds that finance innovation General technological

innovation (recyling on the basis of energy use..) or ex ante defining the type (tender on specific issues)?

•Total environmental and energy taxes (% GDP); source: Eurostat

•Share of GDP, total Energy taxes

•Share of GDP, environmental & resource taxes

ETR: national and decentralised levels

National levels of taxation (CO2)Regional and local levels

Landfill taxes, Sox, Nox, PM10 taxes, water extraction charges, resource taxes on minerals, aggregates…

Es. They could abate IRAP, the ‘hated’ regional tax on economic activity, around 30 billions

Issue of ‘Resource taxation reform’ RTR

Environmental externalities still at the heart of ETR rationale

• Muller, Mendelshon, Nordhaus (2011), Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the US economy, AER, 1649-75.

• Gross external damage of US economy 182 billions $

• Transport, energy, agriculture, much more pollution intensive than manufacturing (very low in E/VA: 0.01 vs 0.1 transport)

• Transport and manufacturing both account 10% of total

• Intuitive figure for Italy: 20-25 Billions €.

EEA report 2011 on air pollution costs in the EU

• ‘Revealing the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities in Europe’

• 10000 facilities generate between 102-169 billions € of damages (health and environment)

• 50% caused by 191 sites out of 10000 (easier policy making)

• www.eea.europa.eu

Resource taxation(waste, minerals, aggregates)

Applying ETR in local contexts

• The specificity of RT is that they deal with…• Externalities• Revenue recycling• (weak) sustainability objectives• resource efficiency

.. In strict interrelation and complementarity with

Rents management + Regional planning

– (this is the decentralised issue of environmental federalism)

A political economy view on Resource taxation

• ETC/SCP (2012), Mineral /resource taxation and resource efficiency, wp paper for the EEA

• http://scp.eionet.europa.eu

Very soon coming out!

Recycling per capita

New waste tariff diffusion

Some risks of decentralised settings………………..

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS

(unintended?) Induced effects of ETR: Porter and beyond…

MEI (Measuring Eco-Innovation) research project eco-innovation is defined as

• “the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production process, service or management or business method that is novel to the organisation (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout its life-cycle, in a reduction of environmental risks, pollution and other negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives”.

Product and process EI adoption 2006 2008 Industry in Italy (CIS)

Energy efficiency Abatement of CO2

TOT Industry18%

(9-32%)14%

(9-25%)

NO 18% 14%

NE 19% 15%

CE 15% 13%

SUD 15% 15%

ISOLE 14% 16%

N=6483Comparable data for Germany present 30-40% shares

Kyoto?

Glachant et al (2011), Review of environmental economics and policy

81V.Costantini, M.Mazzanti, A.Montini - Environmental Performance and Regional Innovation Spillovers

Table 3 –CO2 and SOX emission intensity (kg x 1M€ of value added, increasing order) Region CO2 Region SOX

Trentino Alto Adige 136 Trentino Alto Adige 39 Campania 141 Valle d’Aosta 45

Valle d’Aosta 153 Abruzzo 69 Piedmonte 185 Campania 78

Lazio 204 Lombardy 99 Marche 206 Lazio 101

Lombardy 209 Marche 108 Abruzzo 258 Piedmonte 108 Veneto 267 Calabria 123

Emilia Romagna 270 Basilicata 224 Tuscany 278 Emilia Romagna 226 ITALY 301 Molise 276

Calabria 307 Veneto 300 Umbria 342 ITALY 315

Friuli Venezia Giulia 353 Tuscany 349 Basilicata 430 Umbria 373

Liguria 472 Friuli Venezia Giulia 539 Sicily 547 Puglia 859 Molise 689 Liguria 886

Sardinia 824 Sicily 1,347 Puglia 971 Sardinia 1,530

mzzmsm@unife.it

Shift-Share: productive specialization (industry mix)

component

83V.Costantini, M.Mazzanti, A.Montini - Environmental Performance and Regional Innovation Spillovers

Note: Below zero values indicate positive performances

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

CO2

SOx

NOx

NMVOC

PM10

Shift-Share: efficiency component

84V.Costantini, M.Mazzanti, A.Montini - Environmental Performance and Regional Innovation Spillovers

Note: Below zero values indicate positive performances

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

CO2

SOx

NOx

NMVOC

PM10

Hybrid Economic-Environmental AccountsEdited by Valeria Costantini, Massimiliano Mazzanti, Anna Montini

Published 1st December 2011 by Routledge

Routledge Studies in Ecological Economics