Environmental and Resource Economics Review (자원ㆍ환경경제연구)

Korean Resource Economics Association (한국자원경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Relationship between Environment Technology and Labor Demand

환경기술과 노동수요

  • 황석준 (계명대학교 경제금융학과)
  • Received : 2013.03.25
  • Accepted : 2013.05.28
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this research, we try to find the conditions under which profit maximizing labor demand increases with pollution abatement activities under the environmental protection policy. Especially, we focus only on the technological advances in traditional production process caused by the spillover effect of pollution abatement technology. Even if Porter's hypothesis(1995) are given, we argue that it is not enough for the society to enjoy the benefits from the innovation with the strengthen of firms' competitiveness. To spread the benefits over economic agents in a society, especially including labor-owner, the current level of pollution abatement technology is important. When the level of pollution abatement technology is appropriate, both the environment protection and the job creation can be achieved through the government policy for environment protection.

환경을 보호하기 위한 정부의 규제가 경제를 지속가능하게 만들기 위해서는 기술발전이 수반되어 경제체제내의 기업들에게 수익을 보장하거나 증대할 필요가 있다. 포터(1995)는 기업의 경쟁력이 환경을 보호하려는 생산기술의 혁신을 통해서 가능하다고 주장했다. 그러나 과연 기업의 경쟁력을 높인 혁신의 성과가 각 사회의 구성원들에게 적절하게 배분되었는지는 알 수 없는 일이다. 본 논문은 포터의 가설이 맞다는 가정 하에서 과연 경쟁력의 향상이 기업의 노동수요 증가로 이어져 경쟁력향상의 과실이 사회구성원 전체에게 돌아갈 수 있는 조건이 무엇인가를 살펴보았다. 이론을 통한 그 조건을 살펴본 결과 오염물을 처리하는 기술의 수준이 노동생산성 향상으로 인한 오염물증가를 충분히 감당할 수 있다면 비록 자본생산성 향상에 따른 생산량증대가 매력적이더라도 합리적인 경제주체는 노동생산성 향상을 통한 기술을 선택할 것이며 이에 따라 노동수요의 증가가 가능하다는 것을 증명하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김승택(2010), <녹색성장을 통한 일자리창출 연구>, 노동연구원.
  2. 나영선 외.(2010), <녹색성장과 직업능력개발정책>, 직업능력개발원.
  3. 황석준 외.(2005), "제조업의 환경오염방지지출과 노동수요", <자원환경경제연구>, 14, 893-921.
  4. 황석준 (2012), "환경규제와 노동수요에 대한 고찰: 단기오염처리기술수준의 관점에서", <경제연구>, 30, 1-15.
  5. Bach, Stefan., et al. (2002), "The Effects of Environmental Fiscal Reform in Germany: A Simulation Study," Energy Policy, 30, 802-811.
  6. Bezdek, Roger., et al. (2008), "Environmental Protection, the Economy, and Jobs: National and Regional Analyses," Journal of Environmental Management, 86, 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.028
  7. Copeland, Brain, et al., (2003), Trade and the Environment, Princeton.
  8. Feichtinger, Gustav., et al. (2005), "Environmental policy, the porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technological progress," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 434-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.12.001
  9. Golombek, Rolf., et al. (1997), "Do Environmental Standards Harm Manufacturing Employment?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 99, 29-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.00045
  10. Majocchi, Alberto. (1996), "Green Fiscal Reform and Employment; A Survey," Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, 375-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00357409
  11. Mooij, Ruud., (1999), "The Double Dividend of an Environmental Tax Reform," Handbook of Environmental Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing Co.
  12. Morgenstern Richard, et al., (2001), "The Cost of Environmental Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 732-738. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237812
  13. Morgenstern Richard, et al., (2002), "Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry Level Perspectives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 412-436. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1191
  14. Porter, Michael, et al. (1995), "Toward a New Competition of the Environment Competitive Relationship," The Journal of Economic Perstpectives, 9.
  15. Rexhauser, sascha., et al. (2011), "Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis: Environmental Innovations and Firm-Profitablity," Discussion Paper No. 11-036, ZEW, Center for European Economic Research.
  16. Rudd A. de Mooij, (1999), "The Double Dividend of an Environmental Tax Reform," Handbook of Environmental Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing Co.