Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection Investment Based on Reciprocity Theory
- 1 School of Economics and Finance, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, China
- 2 School of Economics and Finance, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, China
- 3 School of Economics and Finance, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, China
Abstract
This paper abandons the “rational man” hypothesis in traditional economics and utilize s the existing “reciprocal” principal-agent model (Pu Y. J, 2007) to analyze the benefits of environmental protection inputs. The results of the study show that if humans increase their environmental investment on the basis of rational input is set to , naturally, the increase in revenue under the assumption of “reciprocity” is r , when η > 2r , the environmental investment made by humans under irrational assumptions can bring Higher income level than “rational people”. Thus, the enlightenment of government behavior is: first, the government should fully recognize the “reciprocal” characteristics of the natural environment when formulating environmental protection policies; second, the government should further increase investment on the basis of rational input, when the increased investment meets the aforementioned conditions, the purpose of increasing human income can be achieved.
- Cai, N. and Lv, Y. (1997) Economic Analysis of Industrial Environmental Protection Investment. China Soft Science, 2, 116-120.
- Marx, E. (1974) The Complete Works of Marx and Engels (volume 25). People’s Publishing House, Beijing.
- Panayotou, T. (1997) Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a Black Box into a Policy Tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 465-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X97000259
- Hettige, H., Mani, M. and Wheeler, D. (2000) Industrial Pollution in Economic Development: Kuznets Revisited. Journal of Development Economics, 62, 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00092-4
- Wu, Y.P. and Dong, S.C. (2002) Evaluating Environmental Policy of Beijing. Urban Environment & Urban Ecology, 15, 4-6.
- Xia, Y.J., Chen, X.P. and Li, N. (2006) Evaluating the Environment Policy of Valley Metropolis in Northwest China—A Case Study of Lanzhou. Journal of Lanzhou University (Natural Sciences), 42, 1-5.
- Zhang, H.F., Zhou, F., Yang, H. and Guo, Q. (2009) Regulation Performance of the Win-Win of Environmental Protection and Economic Development. Economic Research Journal, 3, 14-26.
- Gray, W.B. (1987) The Cost of Regulation: OSHA, EPA and the Productivity Slowdown. American Economic Review, 77, 998-1006.
- Jaffe, A.B., Peterson, S.R., Portney, P.R. and Stavins, R.N. (1995) Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U S Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Journal of Economics Literature, 33, 132-163.
- Porter, M.E. (1991) America’s Green Strategy. Scientific American, 264, 1-5.
- Porter, M.E and van der Linde, C. (1995) Toward a New Conception of the Environment: Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97
- Berman, E. and Bui, L.T.M. (2001) Environmental Regulation and Productivity: Evidence from Oil Refineries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 498-510. https://doi.org/10.1162/00346530152480144
- Barbera, A.J. and McConnell, V.D. (1990) The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Industry Productivity: Direct and Indirect Effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18, 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90051-Y
- Wagner, M. (2004) The Porter Hypothesis Revisited: A Literature Review of Theoretical Models and Empirical Test. RePEcWPA, Sweden.