Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T23:38:42.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GREEN TRANSITIONS AND THE PREVENTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS: MARKET-BASED VS. COMMAND-AND-CONTROL POLICIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2019

Francesco Lamperti ,
Mauro Napoletano  and
Andrea Roventini
Francesco Lamperti*
Affiliation:
Institute of Economics and EMbeDS, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna and RFFCMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment
Mauro Napoletano
Affiliation:
Sciences Po, OFCE, Paris and SKEMA Business School, University Côte D’Azur and Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna
Andrea Roventini
Affiliation:
Institute of Economics and EMbeDS, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna and Observatoire Français des Conjonctures Economiques – Sciences Po
*
Address correspondence to: Francesco Lamperti, Institute of Economics, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertá 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy. e-mail: f.lamperti@santannapisa.it.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper compares the effects of market-based (M-B) and command-and-control (C&C) climate policies on the direction of technical change and the prevention of environmental disasters. Drawing on a model of endogenous growth and directed technical change, we show that M-B policies (carbon taxes and subsidies toward clean sectors) suffer from path dependence and exhibit bounded window of opportunities: delays in their implementation make them ineffective both in redirecting technical change, (i.e. triggering a transition toward clean energy) and in avoiding environmental catastrophes. On the contrary, we find that C&C interventions are favored by path dependence and guarantee policy effectiveness irrespectively of the timing of their introduction. As the hypothesis of path dependence in technological change has received vast empirical support and it is a key feature of many models of growth, we argue that C&C policies should be seen as a valuable and non-equivalent alternative to M-B interventions.

Keywords

Green TransitionEnvironmental PolicyCommand and ControlCarbon Taxes

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 24 , Issue 7 , October 2020 , pp. 1861 - 1880
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This work was supported by the European Union Seventh FP for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement No. 603416—Project IMPRESSIONS (impacts and risks from high-end scenarios: strategies for innovative solutions), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 640772—DOLFINS and No. 649186—ISIGrowth. Moreover, the authors want to thank Giovanni Dosi, Daniele Giachini, Irene Monasterolo, and Alessandro Sapio for useful suggestions and discussions, as well as all the participants to the 2017 ISEFI Workshop for their comments. The comments of two referees and an associate editor helped improving the quality and readability of the paper. All the errors are responsibility of the authors.

References

Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L. and Hemous, D. (2012) The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review 102(1), 131–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acemoglu, D., Hanley, D., Akcigit, U. and Kerr, W. (2016) Transition to clean technology. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 52–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghion, P., Dechezlepretre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R. and Van Reenen, J. (2016) Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezin, E. (2017) The economics of green consumption, cultural transmission and sustainable technological change. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Bretschger, L. and Schaefer, A. (2017) Dirty history versus clean expectations: Can energy policies provide momentum for growth? European Economic Review, 99(Supplement C), 170–190. Combating Climate Change. Lessons from Macroeconomics, Political Economy and Public Finance.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J. (1969) External diseconomies, corrective taxes, and market structure. American Economic Review 59(1), 174–177.Google Scholar
Constant, K. and Davin, M. (2018) Environmental policy and growth when environmental policy is endogenous. Macroeconomic Dynamics 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S1365100517000189.Google Scholar
Durmaz, T. and Schroyen, F. (2016) Evaluating carbon capture and storage in a climate model with endogenous technical change. In: Energy: Expectations and Uncertainty, 39th IAEE International Conference, June 19–22, 2016, International Association for Energy Economics, Bergen.Google Scholar
Gans, J. S. (2012) Innovation and climate change policy. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 4(4), 125–145.Google Scholar
Gerlagh, R., Kverndokk, S. and Rosendahl, K. E. (2009) Optimal timing of climate change policy: Interaction between carbon taxes and innovation externalities. Environmental and Resource Economics 43(3), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillingham, K., Newell, R. G. and Pizer, W. A. (2008) Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Energy Economics 30(6), 2734–2753. Technological Change and the Environment.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudriaan, J. and Ketner, P. (1984) A simulation study for the global carbon cycle, including man’s impact on the biosphere. Climatic Change 6(2), 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulder, L. H. and Parry, I. W. H. (2008) Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2(2), 152–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulder, L. H. and Schneider, S. H. (1999) Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. Resource and Energy Economics 21(3-4), 211–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaker, M., Heggedal, T.-R. and Rosendahl, K. E. (2018) Environmental policy and the direction of technical change. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1100–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimaud, A., Lafforgue, G. and Magné, B. (2011) Climate change mitigation options and directed technical change: A decentralized equilibrium analysis. Resource and Energy Economics 33(4), 938–962. Special section: Sustainable Resource Use and Economic Dynamics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemous, D. (2012) Environmental policy and directed technical change in a global economy: The dynamic impact of unilateral environmental policies. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2184825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
IEA (2016) Global renewable energy policies and measures database. http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/renewableenergy/.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G. and Stavins, R. N. (2003) Technological change and the environment. In: Mäler, K. G. and Vincent, J. R. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Economics, vol. 1, Chapter 11, pp. 461–516. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jobert, T., Karanfil, F. and Tykhonenko, A. (2018) Degree of stringencymatters: Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis based on heterogenous panels and aggregate data. Macroeconomic Dynamics 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S136510051700092X.Google Scholar
Kruse-Andersen, P. (2017) Directed technical change, environmental sustainability, and population growth. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Lamperti, F., Dosi, G., Napoletano, M., Roventini, A. and Sapio, A. (2018) And then He Wasn’t a She: Climate Change and Green Transitions in an Agent-Based Integrated Assessment Model. Technical Report 2018/14, LEM Working Papers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J., Veloso, F. M. and Hounshell, D. A. (2011) Linking induced technological change, and environmental regulation: Evidence from patenting in the U.S. auto industry. Research Policy 40(9), 1240–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. and Shi, S. (2010) Emission Tax or Standard? The Role of Productivity Dispersion. Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Working Papers tecipa-409.Google Scholar
Li, Z. and Sun, J. (2015). Emission taxes and standards in a general equilibrium with entry and exit. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 61, 34–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattauch, L., Creutzig, F. and Edenhofer, O. (2015) Avoiding carbon lock-in: Policy options for advancing structural change. Economic Modelling 50, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (1991) To slow or not to slow: The economics of the greenhouse effect. The Economic Journal 101(407), 920–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258(5086), 1315–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordhaus, W. D. (2007) A review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature 45, 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oeschger, H., Siegenthaler, U., Schotterer, U. and Gugelmann, A. (1975) A box diffusion model to study the carbon dioxide exchange in nature. Tellus 27(2), 168–192.Google Scholar
Otto, V. M. and Reilly, J. (2008) Directed technical change and the adoption of CO2 abatement technology: The case of CO2 capture and storage. Energy Economics 30(6), 2879–2898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palivos, T. and Varvarigos, D. (2017) Pollution abatement as a source of stabilization and long-run growth. Macroeconomic Dynamics 21(3), 644–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popp, D. (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. The American Economic Review 92(1), 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popp, D. (2004) Entice: Endogenous technological change in the DICE model of global warming. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48(1), 742–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popp, D., Newell, R. G. and Jaffe, A. B. (2010) Energy, the environment, and technological change. In: Handbook of Economics of Innovation, vol. 2, pp. 873–937. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozenberg, J., Vogt-Schilb, A. and Hallegatte, S. (2014) Transition to Clean Capital, Irreversible Investment and Stranded Assets. The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper Series 6859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, J. S. and Walker, R. (2015). Why is pollution from U.S. manufacturing declining? The roles of trade, regulation, productivity, and preferences. NBER, Working Paper: No. 20879.Google Scholar
Smulders, S. and De Nooij, M. (2003) The impact of energy conservation on technology and economic growth. Resource and Energy Economics 25(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sue Wing, I. (2003) Induced Technical Change and the Cost of Climate Policy. Technical Report 102, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.Google Scholar
UN (1997) Glossary of Environment Statistics, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 67. Technical Report, United Nations.Google Scholar
van den Bijgaart, I. (2017) The unilateral implementation of a sustainable growth path with directed technical change. European Economic Review 91, 305–327.Google Scholar
van der Meijden, G. and Smulders, S. (2018) Technological change during the energy transition. Macroeconomic Dynamics 22(4), 805–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. (1974) Prices vs. quantities. Review of Economic Studies 41(4), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lamperti et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Lamperti et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 203 KB