Emission Tax Timing and a Monopoly Market

Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 13)


In many economically developed countries, “voluntary approaches”, widely recognized as environmental policy instruments, have been introduced during the last few decades.


Social Welfare Effort Level Asymptotic Line Voluntary Approach Monopoly Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Ben Youssef, S., & Dinar, Z. (2011). Regulation of a duopoly and environmental R&D. Environmental Economics, 2(3), 47–51.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunner, S., Flachsland, C., & Marschinski, R. (2012). Credible commitment in carbon policy. Climate Policy, 12(2), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carraro, C., & Lévêque, F. (1999). Voluntary approaches in environmental policy. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cato, S. (2011). Environmental policy in a mixed market: Abatement subsidies and emission taxes. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 13, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiou, J. R., & Hu, J. L. (2001). Environmental research joint ventures under emission taxes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conrad, K. (2001). Voluntary environmental agreement vs. emission taxes in strategic trade models. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 361–381.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    David, M. (2005). Regulating a polluting oligopoly: Emission tax or voluntary agreement. Review of Development Economics, 9(4), 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujiwara, K. (2009). Environmental policies in a differentiated oligopoly revisited. Resource and Energy Economics, 31, 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hattori, K. (2013). Environmental innovation and policy harmonization in international oligopoly. Environment and Development Economics, 18, 162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hepburn, C. (2006). Regulation by prices, quantities, or both: A review of instrument choice. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ikkatai, S., Ishikawa, D., Ohori, S., & Sasaki, K. (2008). Motivation of Japanese companies to take environmental action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions: An econometric analysis. Sustainability Science, 3, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kato, K. (2011). Emission quota versus emission tax in a mixed duopoly. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 13, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naito, T., & Ogawa, H. (2009). Direct versus indirect environmental regulation in a partially privatized mixed duopoly. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 10, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OECD (1999). Voluntary approaches for environmental policy: An assessment. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    OECD (2003). Voluntary approaches for environmental policy – Effectiveness, efficiency and usage in policy mixes. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ouchida, Y., & Goto, D. (2014). Do emission subsidies reduce emission? in the context of environmental R&D organization. Economic Modelling, 36, 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pal, R. (2012). Delegation and emission tax in a differentiated oligopoly. The Manchester School, 80(6), 650–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petrakis, E., & Xepapadeas, A. (1999). Does government precommitment promote environmental innovation? In E. Petrakis, E. S. Sartzetakis, & A. Xepapadeas (Eds), Environmental regulation and market power: Competition, time consistency and international trade (pp. 145–161). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petrakis, E., & Xepapadeas, A. (2003). Location decisions of a polluting firm and the time consistency of environmental policy. Resource and Energy Economics, 25, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poyago-Theotoky, J., & Teerasuwannajak, K. (2002). The timing of environmental policy: A note on the role of product differentiation. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 21(3), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poyago-Theotoky, J. (2007). The organization of R&D and environmental policy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poyago-Theotoky, J. (2010). Corrigendum to “The organization of R&D and environmental policy” [Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 62, 63–75]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Puller, S. (2006). The strategic use of innovation to influence regulatory standard. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52, 690–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Requate, T. (1993). Pollution control under imperfect competition: Asymmetric Bertrand duopoly with linear technologies. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149(2), 415–442.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Requate, T. (1993). Pollution control in a Cournot duopoly via taxes or permits. Journal of Economics, 58(3), 255–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Requate, T. (2005). Dynamic incentive by environmental policy instruments – A Survey. Ecological Economics, 54, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scott, J. T. (1996). Environmental research joint Ventures among manufacturers. Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott, J. T. (1997). Schumpeterian competition and environmental R&D. Managerial and Decision Economics, 18, 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scott, J. T. (2003). Environmental research and development: US industrial research, the clean air act and environmental damage. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott, J. T. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and environmental research and development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 16, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Straume, O. D. (2006). Product market integration and environmental policy coordination in an international duopoly. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 535–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ulph, A. (1996). Environmental policy and international trade when governments and producers act strategically. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, L. F. S., & Wang, J. (2009). Environmental taxes in a differentiated mixed duopoly. Economic Systems, 33(4), 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHiroshima UniversityHigashi-Hiroshima cityJapan

Personalised recommendations