Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 1913–1940 | Cite as

Cooperation, diffusion of technology and environmental protection: a new index

  • Cristian BarraEmail author
  • Giovanna Bimonte
  • Luigi Senatore


There are various types of environmental indexes or indicators in the literature. In this paper, we propose a new index that is able to point out the important relationship between environmental protection and investments in innovation processes. We identify the index with the acronym EICI (environmental innovation comparative index). This new empirical tool can represent a new way to illustrate how the level of innovation can determine different levels of air pollution in the world. We use generalized method of moments (GMM) and ordinary least squares (OLS) models to investigate how this new index impacts the variations in greenhouse gas emissions and we underline some fundamental policy implications. Considering the levels of the EICI and the empirical analysis of the role of this index then we conclude that enforcing new environmental agreements with some fundamental rules, as the incentive to reduce the technological gaps among the countries, is crucial to protect the environment and at same time stimulate the investment for innovation in all countries of the world.


Kyoto agreement Environmental index GMM model OLS model Environmental policy 

JEL Classification

C12 C13 C23 F18 Q51 



We thank the anonymous reviewer for her/his careful reading of our manuscript and her/his many insightful comments and suggestions.


  1. Agovino, M., Aldieri, L., Garofalo, A., Vinci, C.P.: Quality and quantity in the innovation process of firms. Qual. Quant. 51, 1579–1591 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. Arellano, M., Bover, O.: Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J. Econom. 68(1), 29–51 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Blundell, R., Bond, S.: Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J. Econom. 87(1), 115–143 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. Bun, M.J., Windmeijer, F.: The weak instrument problem of the system GMM estimator in dynamic panel data models. Econom. J. 13(1), 95–126 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, C., Halstead, T., Rowe, J.: The genuine progress indicator: summary of data and methodology. Redefining Progress, Washington DC (1995)Google Scholar
  6. Daly, H., Cobb, J.: For the common good: redirecting the economy towards community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Beacon Press, Boston (1989)Google Scholar
  7. Emerson, J., Esty, D.C., Levy, M.A., Kim, C.H., Mara, V., de Sherbinin, A., Srebotnjak, T.: Environmental performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Hamilton, K., Clemens, M.: Genuine savings rates in developing countries. World Bank Econ. Rev. 13(2), 333–356 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. Hamilton, K., Hepburn, C.: Wealth. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 30(1), 1–20 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. Hanley, N.: Macroeconomic measures of sustainability. J. Econ. Surv. 14(1), 1–30 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. Hanley, N., Dupuy, L., McLaughlin, E.: Genuine savings and sustainability. J. Econ. Surv. 29(4), 779–806 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. Hayakawa, K.: Small sample bias properties of the system GMM estimator in dynamic panel data models. Econ. Lett. 95(1), 32–38 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. Hayakawa, K.: First difference or forward orthogonal deviation-Which transformation should be used in dynamic panel data models: a simulation study. Econ. Bull. 29(3), 2008–2017 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. Hayakawa, K.: Improved GMM estimation of panel VAR models. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 100, 240–264 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. Holtz-Eakin, D., Selden, T.M.: Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. J. Public Econ. 57(1), 85–101 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y.: Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econ. 115(1), 53–74 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Kaly, U., Briguglio, L., McLeod, H., Schmall, S., Pratt, C., Pal, R.: Environmental vulnerability index (EVI) to summarise national environmental vulnerability profiles, p. 73. SOPAC Tech Rep., New Caledonia (1999)Google Scholar
  18. Lee, J., Veloso, F.M., Hounshell, D.A.: Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry. Res. Pol. 40(9), 1240–1252 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. Li, A., Du, N., Wei, Q.: The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies. Energy Policy 72, 155–163 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. Li, A., Zhang, Z., Zhang, A.: Why are there large differences in performances when the same carbon emission reductions are achieved in different countries? J. Cleaner Prod. 103, 309–318 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. Loh, J., 2002, Living Planet Report 2002. World Wildlife FundGoogle Scholar
  22. Luzzati, T., Orsini, M.: Investigating the energy-environmental Kuznets curve. Energy 34(3), 291–300 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. McLaughlin, E., Hanley, N., Greasley, D., Kunnas, J., Oxley, L., Warde, P.: Historical wealth accounts for Britain: progress and puzzles in measuring the sus- tainability of economic growth. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 30(1), 44–69 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. OECD, 2015, Organization for economic co-operation and development: environment at a glance 2015 OECD indicators. OECD Publishing; jsessionid = 1dgfyfbli938 k.x-oecd-live-02. Accessed July 2016
  25. Popp, D.: International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies. The effects of NOx and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan and Germany. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 51(1), 46–71 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. Porter, M.: America’s green strategy. Sci. Am. 264(4), 168 (1991)Google Scholar
  27. Rees, W.E.: Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ. Urban. 4(2), 121–130 (1992)Google Scholar
  28. Rees WE, Wackernagel M (1994) Ecological footprints and appropriated carry- ing capacity: Measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy, in Jansson, A. et al. Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Washington D.C.:Island PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Richmond, A.K., Kauffmann, R.K.: Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecol. Econ. 56(2), 176–189 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. Say, N.P., Yucel, M.: Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Turkey: empirical analysis and futureprojection based on an economic growth. Energy Policy 34(18), 3870–3876 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. Scipioni, A., Mazzi, A., Mason, M., Manzardo, A.: The Dashboard of Sustainability to measure the local urban sustainable development: the case study of Padua Municipality. Ecol. indicators 9(2), 364–380 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. Shafik, N.: Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 46, 757–773 (1994)Google Scholar
  33. Skondras, N.A., Karavitis, C.A., Gkotsis, I.I., Scott, P.J.B., Kaly, U.L., Alexandris, S.G.: Application and assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability Index in Greece. Ecol. Ind. 11(6), 1699–1706 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. UN (United Nations), European Commission, IMF (International Monetary Fund), OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), and World Bank (Editors), 2003. Handbook of National Accounting Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. Studies in Methods, Series F, No.61, Rev.1. UN, New York, 572Google Scholar
  35. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme): Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting An Operational Manual. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  36. Urpelainen, Johannes: The strategic design of technology funds for climate cooperation: generating joint gains. Environ. Sci. Policy 15(1), 92–105 (2012)Google Scholar
  37. Windmeijer, F.: A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J. Econ. 126(1), 25–51 (2005)Google Scholar
  38. Yao, X., Zhou, H., Zhang, A., Li, A.: Regional energy efficiency, car- bon emission performance and technology gaps in China: a meta-frontier non-radial directional distance function analysis. Energy Policy 84, 142–154 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristian Barra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanna Bimonte
    • 1
  • Luigi Senatore
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations