考慮延伸生產責任下的最適產品可回收率與環境研發

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：48

、訪客IP：3.144.161.116

姓名

王惠萱(Hui-Hsuan Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

經濟學系

論文名稱

考慮延伸生產責任下的最適產品可回收率與環境研發

相關論文

★ 存在中間財市場下的跨國廠商進入模式選擇	★ 匯率與本國中間財廠商的直接投資決策
★ 網路外部性下的利潤廠商跟共營廠商競爭分析	★ 寡占市場下的自動進口擴張政策分析
★ 寡占廠商成本歧異下之最適產業與貿易政策	★ 雙邊貿易的最適關稅
★ 平行輸入、仿冒與服務品質	★ 經濟成長、消費者信心與銀行風險
★ 網路外部性與最適民營化政策	★ 經濟整合與關稅政策的福利分析
★ 最適民營化政策的相關議題分析	★ 多功能產品跨業效果的經濟分析
★ 出口競爭與廠商的直接投資決策－匯率的考量	★ Drastic or Non-drastic Innovation When Encountering Rivals
★ 存在中間財下的仿冒行為分析	★ 外人直接投資與政府的策略性汙染稅

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本文建立一個產品垂直差異化雙占模型，市場上有兩家廠商，一原始產品可回收較高，另一原始產品可回收率較低，並在市場上進行價格競爭。探討當廠商受到EPR規範時，會如何在最適產品可回收率與最適減污研發量之間做取捨，並且探究何種因素會影響廠商的決策。最後在進一步探討廠商進行減污研發ER&D是否是有助於社會福利的提升。
本文發現，當消費者普遍重視產品可回收率或者產品邊際汙染量增加時，會使兩家廠商均減少減汙研發量。並且發現當廠商進行減汙研發ER&D且政府收取較高的廢棄物處理費時，會使兩廠商生產的產品總汙染高於廠商未進行減汙研發ER&D時的產品總汙染；政府收取較低的廢棄物處理費時，會使兩廠商生產的產品總汙染低於廠商未進行減汙研發ER&D時的產品總汙染。最後，發現當廠商進行減汙研發ER&D，確實可使整體社會福利提升。
另外，本文也發現，當政府收取較高廢棄物處理費時，無論有無進行減污研發ER&D的最適產品可回收率均會低於社會最適的產品可回收率，且低產品可回收率的廠商所投入的減污研發量會高於社會最適；當政府收取較低廢棄物處理費時，無論有無進行減污研發ER&D的最適產品可回收率均會接近或者超過社會最適的產品可回收率，且原本低產品可回收率的廠商所投入的減污研發量會少於社會最適。並且在消費者普遍重視產品可回收率的情況下，原本高產品可回收率廠商所投入的減污研發量與社會最適之間的關係必須依消費者重視程度而定，但在消費者普遍不重視產品可回收率的情況下，原本高產品可回收率廠商所投入的減污研發量會高於社會最適。

摘要(英)

This thesis is to examine how the environment policy affects a duopoly model with vertical product differentiation. There are two producers in the market of a recyclable product in competition. One has a higher recycle rate than the other. The aim is to study how and on what key issues the producers choose between the optimal recycle rate and the optimal pollution reducing R&D, when the extended producer responsibility (EPR) is implemented. The question of whether and how the environmental research and development (ER&D) of the producers improving social welfare is discussed.
It is discovered in this thesis that the producers will put less efforts on pollution reducing R&D when the consumers pay more attention on the recycle rate or on the marginal pollution rate of the product. Under a higher disposal cost charged by the government, the total volume of pollution due to the two producers is lager when they invest in ER&D. But under a lower disposal cost, doing ER&D will bring the total pollution to a smaller volume.
On the other hand, it is also observed in this thesis that a higher disposal cost will make the optimal recycling rate of the product less than the social optimum, regardless ER&D being involved or not. In this case, the producer with lower recycle rate puts more efforts on ER&D than that the social optimum demands. In another situation while the government charges a lower waste processing fee, the optimal recycling rates from both producers are close to or exceed the social optimum, also regardless of ER&D. It also happens that the producer with lower recycling rate puts less efforts on ER&D than that the social optimum demands. The amount of investment on ER&D of the producer with high recycling rate depends on how the consumers look at the recycling rate. If the general consumers emphasize on the recycling rate, that producer will put corresponding efforts on ER&D to respond to the social optimum. But if the general consumers do not emphasize on recycling rate, the producer with a higher recycling rate will put more efforts on the pollution reducing R&D more than that the optimum demands.

關鍵字(中)

★ 延伸生產者責任
★ 環境研發
★ 產品垂直差異化
★ 覆蓋市場

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
謝辭 iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 vi
第一章前言 1
第二章文獻回顧 4
第三章市場分析 8
3-1 基本模型 8
3-2 研發活動分析 16
3-3 比較分析 22
第四章社會規劃者 30
第五章結論 37
參考文獻 39

參考文獻

Arnaud, B. (2015), “Extended Producer Responsibility and Green Marketing: An Application to Packaging,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 67, 285-296.
Balde, C. P., V. Forti, V. Gray, R. Kuehr, and P. Stegmann (2017), The Global E-waste Monitor – 2017, Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (United Nations University, International Telecommunication Union and International Solid Waste Association), Bonn / Geneva / Vienna.
Barnes, M., C. Chan-Halbrendt, Q. Zhang, and N. Abejon (2011) “Consumers Preference and Willingness to Pay for Non-Plastic Food Containers in Honolulu, USA,” Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 1264 -1273.
Barrett, A. and J. Lawlor (1997), “Questioning the Waste Hierarchy: The Case of a Region with a Low Population Density,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40, 19-36.
Bech-Larsen, T. (1996), “Danish Consumers’ Attitudes to the Functional and Environmental Characteristics of Food Packaging,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 19, 339-363.
Chiou, J. R. and J. L. Hu (2001) “Environmental Research Joint Ventures under Emission Taxes,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 129-146.
Fleckinger, P. and M. Glachant (2010), “The Organization of Extended Producer Responsibility in Waste Policy with Product Differentiation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 57-66.
Fullerton, D. and W. Wu (1998), “Policies for Green Design,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 131-148.
Huhtala, A. (1999), “How Much do Money, Inconvenience and Pollution Matter? Analysing Households Demand for Large-Scale Recycling and Incineration”, Journal of Environmental Management, 55, 27-38.
Petrakis, E. and A. P. Xepapadeas (1998), “Does Government Promote Environmental Innovation,” Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Nota di Lavoro 88, Milan.
Rokka, J. and L. Uusitalo (2008), “Preference for Green Packaging in Consumer Product Choices: Do Consumers Care?” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 516-525.
Runkel, M. (2003), “Product Durability and Extended Producer Responsibility in Solid Waste Management,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 161-182.
Thφgersen, J. (1999), “The Ethical Consumer, Moral Norms and Packaging Choice,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 439-460.
Tsai, T. H., K. I. Tu., and J. R. Chiou (2015), “Tariff and Environmental Taxes in the Presence of Environmental R&D,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 60, 413-431.
Ulph, A. (1996), “Environmental Policy and International Trade When Governments and Producers Act Strategically,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 265-281.
Ulph, A. and D. Ulph (2007), “Climate Change-Environmental and Technology Policies in a Strategic Context,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 159-180.
van Birgelen, M., J. Semeijn, and M. Keicher (2009), “Packaging and Proenvironmental Consumption Behavior: Investigating Purchase and Disposal Decisions for Beverages,” Environment and Behavior, 41, 125-146.
Youssef, S. B. (2009), “Transboundary Pollution, R&D Spillovers and International Trade,” The Annals of Regional Science, 43, 235-250.
Yue, C., C. R. Hall, B. K. Behe, B. L. Campbell, J. H. Dennis, and R. G. Lopez (2010) “Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Miodegradable Containers than for Plastic Ones? Evidence from Hypothetical Conjoint Analysis and Nonhypothetical Experimental Auctions,” Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, 42, 757-772.

指導教授

邱俊榮(Jiunn-Rong Chiou)

審核日期

2018-7-25

推文