In areas where waste collection is paid by the one creating the waste, it is obvious that people are going to try to shop for the best option. In some cases, that option is illegal waste dumping, which leads to the unfortunate creation of trash police forces. But except for this the latter unfortunate turn of events, there is nothing wrong with price competition for trash.
Except when these prices are subsidized by municipalities, and they then complain that people from other municipalities use their services. Simon De Jaeger and Johan Eyckmans look at such trash and recycling tourism in Flanders, where this is believed to be a major issue facilitated by the fact that pricing methods vary widely from facility to facility. They build a choice model of where households would bring their trash given prices and estimate it with spatial econometric techniques. The average price in neighboring municipalities is used to capture waste tourism, but I think the lowest price, not the average one, should be used. Maybe this is why De Jaeger and Eyckmans find no evidence for tourism except for bulky household trash.
Showing posts with label externalities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label externalities. Show all posts
Congestion charges in Stockholm: Did they work?
Proposals for city congestion charges continue to be put forward (even outside cities), both as a means to make the congestion disappear, reduce pollution, make city life more bearable and generate some revenue. The pioneer, London, has some mixed results according to a previous post, although I personally feel London is now much more bearable. In some cases, the benefits are much clearer, yet voters resist because of the unknown (other previous post).
Maria Börjesson, Jonas Eliasson, Muriel Hugosson and Karin Brundell-Freij update us on Stockholm, where people should be used to taxes and be easier to convince. Yet, it was not that easy to pass it by referendum, but the electorate warmed to the idea once it was in place. Also, it has reduced traffic and let to a significant (and visible, I must say) substitution to charge-exempt alternative-fuel vehicles. There seems to be a general agreement this is a success, and one needs to find a way to overcome initial resistance.
Maria Börjesson, Jonas Eliasson, Muriel Hugosson and Karin Brundell-Freij update us on Stockholm, where people should be used to taxes and be easier to convince. Yet, it was not that easy to pass it by referendum, but the electorate warmed to the idea once it was in place. Also, it has reduced traffic and let to a significant (and visible, I must say) substitution to charge-exempt alternative-fuel vehicles. There seems to be a general agreement this is a success, and one needs to find a way to overcome initial resistance.
About taxing children for climate change
While some impact from global climate change can already be felt, it is believed the significant impact will be for future generations. As the current generation would only face a cost to alleviate what leads to this climate change, one can make the argument that the future generations should pay us. But they are not there yet to do so. However, their parents are and these care about their offspring. So parents should be taxed to take care of reducing pollution and redistributing funds to those hurt by reducing pollution from current levels. That is a rather twisted argument to argue for future generations to pay (homework: where is the error?).
A better argument can be made for parents to pay. It is by Henning Bohn and Charles Stuart, who observe that each additional person exerts a negative externality onto the others by generating more population, taking more spaces, etc. That externality is not internalized, thus it needs to be taxed. Thus, whatever the reasons are that we subsidize having children needs to be amended by this tax. And by the calculations of Bohn and Stuart, the child subsidy could very well turn into a child tax. Indeed, the child pollution tax is 21% of life-time parent income per child, which is needed to divide the population by four in the long-run. However, that tax can be reduced to 5% if there is a cap of pollution permits set at current levels.
Of course, one can have endless arguments about the calibration used in the study. In this particular case, it is assumed that it costs 3% of output to reduce pollution by 25%. Also important is the output and time cost of children, as well as preference parameters. You may think of other parametrizations, but it remains that the child pollution tax makes sense. Only its amount it up to debate.
A better argument can be made for parents to pay. It is by Henning Bohn and Charles Stuart, who observe that each additional person exerts a negative externality onto the others by generating more population, taking more spaces, etc. That externality is not internalized, thus it needs to be taxed. Thus, whatever the reasons are that we subsidize having children needs to be amended by this tax. And by the calculations of Bohn and Stuart, the child subsidy could very well turn into a child tax. Indeed, the child pollution tax is 21% of life-time parent income per child, which is needed to divide the population by four in the long-run. However, that tax can be reduced to 5% if there is a cap of pollution permits set at current levels.
Of course, one can have endless arguments about the calibration used in the study. In this particular case, it is assumed that it costs 3% of output to reduce pollution by 25%. Also important is the output and time cost of children, as well as preference parameters. You may think of other parametrizations, but it remains that the child pollution tax makes sense. Only its amount it up to debate.
Fiscal policy and climate change
It becomes more and more difficult to deny that something is happening to the weather and that climate change is a reality. From the point of view of the economist, this implies that there is more scope for distortionary taxation to mitigate climate change, and this brings a series of opportunities to improve the economy in indirect ways. The big fear of business is that sin taxes on pollution will curtail their production and profits. Of course, this is the whole point of these taxes, that is to internalize the effect of pollution, and that often means either reducing production or increasing production costs.
But as Benjamin Jones, Michael Keen and Jon Strand point out, this has also important benefits for businesses: the added tax revenue allows to reduce other taxes, in particular the ones that are bad for business: corporate taxes or income taxes could even be eliminated in a so-called greening of the tax code. This is one important reason one should tax polluting production or energy instead of subsidizing energy-efficient production or alternative energy, as I have already repeated at great lengths on this blog. But this is easier said than done, as the public will surely call for public expenses to cope with climate change. Politically, it is much easier to give firms technology to pollute less than have them buy it because polluting alternatives have become too expensive. But because it is easier politically does not mean it is right.
But as Benjamin Jones, Michael Keen and Jon Strand point out, this has also important benefits for businesses: the added tax revenue allows to reduce other taxes, in particular the ones that are bad for business: corporate taxes or income taxes could even be eliminated in a so-called greening of the tax code. This is one important reason one should tax polluting production or energy instead of subsidizing energy-efficient production or alternative energy, as I have already repeated at great lengths on this blog. But this is easier said than done, as the public will surely call for public expenses to cope with climate change. Politically, it is much easier to give firms technology to pollute less than have them buy it because polluting alternatives have become too expensive. But because it is easier politically does not mean it is right.
Differentiated carbon taxation
In the face of pollution externalities, there is no doubt that carbon taxes are the best solution. What is more tricky is to establish the level of those taxes. A particular aspect of this is whether carbon taxes need to be differentiated across countries. For example, should it be the same in developed and developing economies? For context, see the current riots and strikes in Nigeria after the removal of fuel subsidies.
Antoine d’Autumne, Katheline Schubert, Cees Withagen take on the question at an international level and argue that that optimal tax design would call for differentiated taxes with lump-sum transfers across countries. While the tax has a world-wide component, the country-specific one stems from local externalities, of course, and from the distortions from cost of public funds. If lump-sum transfers are not possible, international inequities would also have to be captured by differentiated taxes. So, yes, rich countries do need to tax carbon more, even probably even much more than poor ones.
Antoine d’Autumne, Katheline Schubert, Cees Withagen take on the question at an international level and argue that that optimal tax design would call for differentiated taxes with lump-sum transfers across countries. While the tax has a world-wide component, the country-specific one stems from local externalities, of course, and from the distortions from cost of public funds. If lump-sum transfers are not possible, international inequities would also have to be captured by differentiated taxes. So, yes, rich countries do need to tax carbon more, even probably even much more than poor ones.
One more argument for taxing unhealthy activities
Whenever an activity exerts a negative externality on others, you want to tax it. For example, sin taxes are in place or are proposed for smoking, eating junk food or drinking soda. The reasoning is that these activities are bad for health, and thus end up costing society, even when there is no socialized health care. The fact that these unhealthy people tend to live shorter only partly offsets the direct effect of the externality.
Catarina Goulão and Agustín Pérez-Barahona explain that there is another good reason to tax unhealthy food: unhealthy eating habits are transmitted from a generation to the next even when there is no genetic reason for this to happen. This can also within a group of socially interacting people, which gives obesity or smoking the characteristics of an epidemic. To break this vicious circle of learning, the price mechanism has to come to the rescue. So let's impose more or new sin taxes. We could use the revenue, apparently.
Catarina Goulão and Agustín Pérez-Barahona explain that there is another good reason to tax unhealthy food: unhealthy eating habits are transmitted from a generation to the next even when there is no genetic reason for this to happen. This can also within a group of socially interacting people, which gives obesity or smoking the characteristics of an epidemic. To break this vicious circle of learning, the price mechanism has to come to the rescue. So let's impose more or new sin taxes. We could use the revenue, apparently.
The best solution: carbon taxes
When there is some externality, the best way to deal it is with a tax (for a negative externality like pollution) or a subsidy (for a positive externality like education). Yet, I am continuously amazed how this policy using the market mechanism has found little reception in the United States. And economists are also very fond of it: it is the most efficient way to reach an objective, and in the case of a negative externality it even allows to reduce other taxes that distort the wrong way, like income taxes.
Joseph Aldy and Robert Stavins writes a survey article about how to best deal with carbon pollution, comparing a cap-and-trade of pollution permits, clean energy standards and taxation of carbon content. And the latter is the easy winner. And as argued multiple times on this blog, alternative energy should not be subsidized.
Joseph Aldy and Robert Stavins writes a survey article about how to best deal with carbon pollution, comparing a cap-and-trade of pollution permits, clean energy standards and taxation of carbon content. And the latter is the easy winner. And as argued multiple times on this blog, alternative energy should not be subsidized.
Hurrican damage and climate change
Global climate change is not only supposed to bring higher average temperatures on earth but also more extreme weather. The latter is possibly the more important consequence, as it has an impact on agriculture and more generally can destroy property. One example is the incidence of hurricanes in the United States, with more and stronger hurricanes likely. What would be the economic impact of this?
Robert Mendelsohn, Kerry Emanuel and Shun Chonabayashi study this using historical data from hurricanes and estimating a damage function. Then they use this function to estimate damages from two scenarios, with and without climate change, taking into account that various US states will have higher populations and incomes in the following decades. In the end, some of the increase in damages is due to this growth, but climate change would have twice that impact. Yet, at $40 billion a year, it still proves to be relatively affordable compared to US GDP. But it is concentrated around the Gulf of Mexico, which shall become even less hospitable with higher temperatures anyway. The outlook for Florida is not too good...
Robert Mendelsohn, Kerry Emanuel and Shun Chonabayashi study this using historical data from hurricanes and estimating a damage function. Then they use this function to estimate damages from two scenarios, with and without climate change, taking into account that various US states will have higher populations and incomes in the following decades. In the end, some of the increase in damages is due to this growth, but climate change would have twice that impact. Yet, at $40 billion a year, it still proves to be relatively affordable compared to US GDP. But it is concentrated around the Gulf of Mexico, which shall become even less hospitable with higher temperatures anyway. The outlook for Florida is not too good...
A market for IP addresses
IP addresses face exhaustion, at the least those under the standard IPv4 format, and by some reports they should have been all used up already. What has helped delay the inevitable is probably the fact that there is now a market for IP addresses, yet it is not clear that the market is working efficiently. The reason is that IP addresses are allocated in blocks, and fragmenting the big IP allocation table makes it more difficult to manage it. For technical reasons, each allocation needs to be a square in the table. Thus, if a square is partially unused, it can only be split in multiple squares, increasing their number. Routers need to keep each possible square in memory, and their multiplication slows routing. And as IP addresses are privately owned and managed, there is no way to control this negative externality.
Benjamin Edelman and Michael Schwarz propose a market mechanism that should make the allocation of IP addresses more efficient. They suggest a "spartan rule:" in each bilateral trade, one of the two traders is designated as "extinguished," i.e., as prohibited from trading with other extinguished ones. As one can be extinguished only once, this implies that the number of cuts N in the IP table is limited to the number of initial holders of IP blocks. The analysis is static and under certainty, implying that the implicit rental price of an IP is zero as long as there is still a free one. But with the proposed rule, I do not see how one could necessarily reach exhaustion after the N cuts. It all depends on the initial allocation: one can end up with free IP addresses and no possible moves. In addition, once we add uncertainty and dynamics, there is going to be strategic behavior as being extinguished is a potentially costly absorbing state. I am thus not convinced of the arguments in this paper.
Of course, the easiest would be for everyone to switch to IPv6, which would give a sufficient number of IP addresses to last for a long time. But IPv6 devices cannot communicate with IPv4 devices (large scale IPv4 to IPv6 translation is cumbersome), which gives little incentive to switch until there is substantial critical mass. In other words, another situation like Y2K is approaching, and nobody has an incentive to do something about it. The more efficient market allocation will delay this, but also will make it even more urgent when it happens, because more addresses will need to switch, and they will have less time for it.
Benjamin Edelman and Michael Schwarz propose a market mechanism that should make the allocation of IP addresses more efficient. They suggest a "spartan rule:" in each bilateral trade, one of the two traders is designated as "extinguished," i.e., as prohibited from trading with other extinguished ones. As one can be extinguished only once, this implies that the number of cuts N in the IP table is limited to the number of initial holders of IP blocks. The analysis is static and under certainty, implying that the implicit rental price of an IP is zero as long as there is still a free one. But with the proposed rule, I do not see how one could necessarily reach exhaustion after the N cuts. It all depends on the initial allocation: one can end up with free IP addresses and no possible moves. In addition, once we add uncertainty and dynamics, there is going to be strategic behavior as being extinguished is a potentially costly absorbing state. I am thus not convinced of the arguments in this paper.
Of course, the easiest would be for everyone to switch to IPv6, which would give a sufficient number of IP addresses to last for a long time. But IPv6 devices cannot communicate with IPv4 devices (large scale IPv4 to IPv6 translation is cumbersome), which gives little incentive to switch until there is substantial critical mass. In other words, another situation like Y2K is approaching, and nobody has an incentive to do something about it. The more efficient market allocation will delay this, but also will make it even more urgent when it happens, because more addresses will need to switch, and they will have less time for it.
On job loss estimates from regulation
The current talk in Republican circles is that one can achieve significant job growth by deregulating. One may want to question this idea on two fronts. First, regulation has been initially imposed not for the fun of killing jobs, but because it improves the well-being of people. There is a trade-off, and sometimes it is worth having a little fewer jobs if it means improving the life of a lot of people. Second, the job loss numbers from regulation are often more fantasy than reality.
This is not a new question. Take the case of Australia, as discussed by Bruce Chapman. He looks at estimate of job loss in Australian mining from the implementation of an emission trading scheme. These 23,510 lost jobs are not as large as they appear. First, there would be job gains elsewhere, in particular in alternative energies. Second, when compared to normal job flows in the mining sectors, this number is quite negligible. Third, once you look at a somewhat longer horizon, say, ten years, a job loss is virtually undetectable. I would add finally, measurement of jobs losses has high uncertainty, and any result commissioned by one party in the debate needs to be taken as an extreme value.
So, do not have too high hopes that a sudden deregulation will create a job boom, especially in a country that has remarkably little regulation to start with.
This is not a new question. Take the case of Australia, as discussed by Bruce Chapman. He looks at estimate of job loss in Australian mining from the implementation of an emission trading scheme. These 23,510 lost jobs are not as large as they appear. First, there would be job gains elsewhere, in particular in alternative energies. Second, when compared to normal job flows in the mining sectors, this number is quite negligible. Third, once you look at a somewhat longer horizon, say, ten years, a job loss is virtually undetectable. I would add finally, measurement of jobs losses has high uncertainty, and any result commissioned by one party in the debate needs to be taken as an extreme value.
So, do not have too high hopes that a sudden deregulation will create a job boom, especially in a country that has remarkably little regulation to start with.
Using energy taxes to dampen energy price fluctuations
Oil price fluctuations seem to preoccupy people less these days, maybe because they got used to higher prices or because other issues are hotter now. But remember how popular it was to call for the government, whatever the county, to reduce fuel taxes to ease the burden. Which bears the question whether this would be a good idea if you think harder about it.
Helmuth Cremer, Firouz Gahvari, and Norbert Ladoux did so and come to the conclusion that the fuel taxes should not move as much as the energy price. The reason is that the Pigovian motivation for imposing them, internalizing the externalities, has not changed, which would call for perfect smoothing. But this is to an important extend compensated by redistribution considerations as goods using energy are used by people of different incomes. In the end, a doubling of pre-tax energy prices lead to a post-tax increase of 64%. But that is only assuming that the tax was optimal to start with. In many countries it is currently much too low, thus the argument about reducing the tax in high price times is largely invalid, In fact, one should take advantage of reduction in world energy prices to increase the taxes, which would raise much needed money.
Helmuth Cremer, Firouz Gahvari, and Norbert Ladoux did so and come to the conclusion that the fuel taxes should not move as much as the energy price. The reason is that the Pigovian motivation for imposing them, internalizing the externalities, has not changed, which would call for perfect smoothing. But this is to an important extend compensated by redistribution considerations as goods using energy are used by people of different incomes. In the end, a doubling of pre-tax energy prices lead to a post-tax increase of 64%. But that is only assuming that the tax was optimal to start with. In many countries it is currently much too low, thus the argument about reducing the tax in high price times is largely invalid, In fact, one should take advantage of reduction in world energy prices to increase the taxes, which would raise much needed money.
The next Nobel Prize
Monday, the next "Nobel Prize" in Economics will be announced and everybody is playing a game of predictions, so why not me? I have a wish that happens to coincide with my prediction: William Nordhaus.
Why? Because environmental economics has been long rumored to get it and it deserves to be recognized. Within that field, Nordhaus has made major contributions that brought this field to the mainstream. And he is a genuinely good guy, always helpful and willing to listen to you or help you out. Also, the signals I have been receiving from members of the Prize committee is that they really like his work.
I am afraid, though, that he may have to share his work with Martin Weitzman. Who has made the more seminal contributions to the field can be discussed, but Weitzman is all the opposite in terms of attitude. In addition, I do not like his way of trying to make a name of himself, like I showed previously. He has also been caught and punished for stealing horse manure, so his ethical standards are definitively not up to par.
Why? Because environmental economics has been long rumored to get it and it deserves to be recognized. Within that field, Nordhaus has made major contributions that brought this field to the mainstream. And he is a genuinely good guy, always helpful and willing to listen to you or help you out. Also, the signals I have been receiving from members of the Prize committee is that they really like his work.
I am afraid, though, that he may have to share his work with Martin Weitzman. Who has made the more seminal contributions to the field can be discussed, but Weitzman is all the opposite in terms of attitude. In addition, I do not like his way of trying to make a name of himself, like I showed previously. He has also been caught and punished for stealing horse manure, so his ethical standards are definitively not up to par.
Greening production through information
People in general prefer green products, although they are not always ready to pay a significant markup for a greener product. If they know that a product has been manufactured using green procedures, there will attach more value to it if the claim is credible. Several green labels, supposed to certify such claims, have emerged, but none have much recognition, in fact one sometimes wonders whether some of them are really weak.
Another approach is voluntary disclose of pollution emissions and other environmental disclosures by the industry. This is reviewed by, take a deep breath, Venkatachalam Anbumozhi, Qwanruedee Chotichanathawewong and Thirumalainambi Murugesh with a focus on Asia. They highlight that the final consumer is not necessarily the one targeted by this information. For example, some investment funds, in particular sovereign wealth funds, are under pressure to invest in ethical firms. Or potential employees may avoid polluters, and local planning may benefit form the available information, thus encouraging local investment.
The authors argue that there is little environmental regulation in most of Asian, with makes the price of environmental benefits close to zero. If you want firms to start abating, you need regulation, and then they also be willing to should how well they abate, leading to more abatement. In some larger Asian countries, a few modest disclosure programs have started, and they have shown excellent prospect in increasing environmental compliance.
Another approach is voluntary disclose of pollution emissions and other environmental disclosures by the industry. This is reviewed by, take a deep breath, Venkatachalam Anbumozhi, Qwanruedee Chotichanathawewong and Thirumalainambi Murugesh with a focus on Asia. They highlight that the final consumer is not necessarily the one targeted by this information. For example, some investment funds, in particular sovereign wealth funds, are under pressure to invest in ethical firms. Or potential employees may avoid polluters, and local planning may benefit form the available information, thus encouraging local investment.
The authors argue that there is little environmental regulation in most of Asian, with makes the price of environmental benefits close to zero. If you want firms to start abating, you need regulation, and then they also be willing to should how well they abate, leading to more abatement. In some larger Asian countries, a few modest disclosure programs have started, and they have shown excellent prospect in increasing environmental compliance.
How to tax addictions
Addiction is most often a problem of self-control. If one is not capable of factoring in the future consequences of one's actions, one way to make this is taken into account is to distort prices appropriately. This is what taxes (and subsidies) are good at. While we know rather well how to design taxes on externalities born by others or the community, the case is more difficult for externalities inflicted on future selves.
Luca Bossi, Paul Calcott and Vladimir Petkov get on the case i the context of externalities, self-control issues and imperfect competition, as applicable for cigarettes and their highly concentrated industry. They also implement time-consistent taxes to accommodate the addiction, which means that people or government would not want to deviate from the social optimum. Taxes are thus state dependent and described by a rule. One important result is that combining addiction and imperfect competition leads to lower taxes that previously reported, because prices are already higher to start with if providers are oligopolistic. Were some drugs to be legalized, one has thus to keep in mind that the new market structure matters in the design of the new taxes.
Luca Bossi, Paul Calcott and Vladimir Petkov get on the case i the context of externalities, self-control issues and imperfect competition, as applicable for cigarettes and their highly concentrated industry. They also implement time-consistent taxes to accommodate the addiction, which means that people or government would not want to deviate from the social optimum. Taxes are thus state dependent and described by a rule. One important result is that combining addiction and imperfect competition leads to lower taxes that previously reported, because prices are already higher to start with if providers are oligopolistic. Were some drugs to be legalized, one has thus to keep in mind that the new market structure matters in the design of the new taxes.
Property rights and natural resources
It is a firmly established conventional wisdom that natural resources are best preserved when there are well established property rights. It is the quintessential example of the tragedy of the commons that if everyone is allowed, say, to take water, water will be over-exploited. This wisdom takes, however, a crucial assumption: that once the resources is taken, property rights are well established and uncontestable. What would happen if not?
Louis Hotte, Randy McFerrin and Douglas Wills show that reverting this assumption can have a dramatic impact. Suppose that you took a freely available resource, but that now anyone can contest your ownership of that resource. Depending on the consequences, you may not want to extract in the first place. It thus matters in which way the state is weak. If it is weak in that it gives away rights to natural resources, then there will be over-exploitation. If it is weak in that it cannot enforce property rights in general, and in particular when it comes to bring product to the market, then it is the Wild West and under-exploitation may ensue. Theft is a powerful mechanism to kill markets.
Louis Hotte, Randy McFerrin and Douglas Wills show that reverting this assumption can have a dramatic impact. Suppose that you took a freely available resource, but that now anyone can contest your ownership of that resource. Depending on the consequences, you may not want to extract in the first place. It thus matters in which way the state is weak. If it is weak in that it gives away rights to natural resources, then there will be over-exploitation. If it is weak in that it cannot enforce property rights in general, and in particular when it comes to bring product to the market, then it is the Wild West and under-exploitation may ensue. Theft is a powerful mechanism to kill markets.
Pollution has an impact on worker productivity
Pollution regulation is typically cast as a game between citizens and firms, the first suffering the consequences of pollution while the second are the origin of the pollution. In such a case, there is no incentive for firms to abate pollution, and the government has to mediate. But could a case be made that firms should be willing, individually or collectively, to reduce pollution. One way can be green labeling, which could increase the demand for their products. Another would be if firms realize pollution has an impact on their on productivity or on the labor supply.
Joshua Graff Zivin and Matthew Neidell take the worker productivity angle by using a dataset of dairy farm workers from a large farm in the Central Valley of California. In particular, they look how ozone levels impact the output of piece rate workers. At it is substantial. For example, a 10 ppb reduction of ozone increases productivity by 4.2%, noting that the standard deviation of ozone levels is 13 ppb. And if you object that some of the workers fall under minimum wage law and may not exert the right effort, be reassured, the authors took that into account. In addition, this impact happens even when the ozone level is well below the current national standards. Realizing this, industry should be more willing to accept the suggested tightening of pollution standards for ozone, and for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals that are the source of ground-level ozone.
Joshua Graff Zivin and Matthew Neidell take the worker productivity angle by using a dataset of dairy farm workers from a large farm in the Central Valley of California. In particular, they look how ozone levels impact the output of piece rate workers. At it is substantial. For example, a 10 ppb reduction of ozone increases productivity by 4.2%, noting that the standard deviation of ozone levels is 13 ppb. And if you object that some of the workers fall under minimum wage law and may not exert the right effort, be reassured, the authors took that into account. In addition, this impact happens even when the ozone level is well below the current national standards. Realizing this, industry should be more willing to accept the suggested tightening of pollution standards for ozone, and for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals that are the source of ground-level ozone.
Should there be international trade in pollution rights?
A basic principle in Economics is that of comparative advantage: a country will produce the goods that it is relatively better at producing, even it is bad at it. The traditional story usually includes relative endowments in capital and labor, and the capital intensity of goods matters. Now add environmental externalities. Comparative advantage would say that polluting production should take place were pollution is the "cheapest," that is. where it would have fewer consequences. This is the principle being the introduction of an international market for pollution rights. Such markets are already active within countries, with the idea that firms that can best control pollution will produce the polluting goods, as they need fewer pollution rights. Would this basic principle also hold across countries?
Jota Ishikawa, the late Morihiro Yomogida and Kazuharu Kiyono claim that it is not necessarily beneficial to have an international market. Indeed they point out that rich countries could import pollution rights from the poor countries, thereby further deteriorating the environment in the developed economies. So instead of relocating production, pollution is imported. It all depends on comparative advantage.
Jota Ishikawa, the late Morihiro Yomogida and Kazuharu Kiyono claim that it is not necessarily beneficial to have an international market. Indeed they point out that rich countries could import pollution rights from the poor countries, thereby further deteriorating the environment in the developed economies. So instead of relocating production, pollution is imported. It all depends on comparative advantage.
Using public firms to regulate the environment
There are various approaches to regulate the pollutions of firms. One can regulate them, one can tax them, or one can create a market for pollution permits. Or one can ask the firms to self-regulate them. Or the government can take over one firm and let it set an example. Which option works best depends on market conditions and how emissions can be observed.
Davide Dragone, Luca Lambertini and Arsen Palestini look at a Cournot oligopoly for the last option. We know that when competition is less than perfect, less will be produced, which is good when the externality is negative. To adjust production to the right level, the public firm choose output and price to coerce the private firms to do the right thing. Basically, the latter are forced to internalize the externality. But this only works if there are not too many firms. The public firm reduces output such that the private one reduce as well, due to lower aggregate output and increased market power. One could thus imagine the government simply shutting down firms. But of course, this is valid only if there is no free entry in the industry, a big if.
Davide Dragone, Luca Lambertini and Arsen Palestini look at a Cournot oligopoly for the last option. We know that when competition is less than perfect, less will be produced, which is good when the externality is negative. To adjust production to the right level, the public firm choose output and price to coerce the private firms to do the right thing. Basically, the latter are forced to internalize the externality. But this only works if there are not too many firms. The public firm reduces output such that the private one reduce as well, due to lower aggregate output and increased market power. One could thus imagine the government simply shutting down firms. But of course, this is valid only if there is no free entry in the industry, a big if.
Paying farmers for landscaping
Switzerland has had for centuries a rather unique system of communal land tenure for the alpine areas. Indeed, cattle owners send their livestock up from the villages for the Summer season, and these grazing areas are commonly owned and rights to them are inherited. The returns of agriculture in the mountainous areas are, however, far from competitive in this era of globalization, and Switzerland has resorted to compensating farmers for keeping the cows up there. The reason is that cows and some other farming bring landscaping benefits, for example keeping the grass short improves snow management for avalanche prevention and skiing, or preserves biodiversity and prevents invasive plants to take foothold. These direct payments are very close to making farmers civil servants. Note that payments depend on the size of the farm, its location, the treatment of animals and the general ecological friendliness of the business.
A pair of recent papers analyze the new situation for farmers in the Swiss Alps. Chiara Calabrese and Gabriele Mack used an agent-based model to study how incomes of a large number of heterogeneous livestock farmer families would evolve until 2020. Different scenarios are explored (a not described status quo, more subsidy for summered livestock and lump sum subsidy to all alpine farmers proportional to farmed area). Results are not unexpected (no change, more summered livestock and income, less of both). Prices are assumed to grow at a steady rate unknown to reader. Give the recent wide fluctuations for food, that needs to be made more explicit and additional scenarios are needed. Also, this study basically assumes that the government does not face a budget constraint and will always be willing whatever it takes to maintain a policy. At least the costs of the program should be reported.
The other study by Nadja El Benni, Stefan Mann and Bernard Lehmann looks at how these direct payments to farmers influence the distribution of incomes. Due to the terrain, farms are small almost everywhere in the country, and Gini coefficients for farmer income have been rather low compared to other countries. The new policy increased the Gini coefficients even though the payments were implemented in part to redistribute income and they constitute now 79% of a farmers income. The reason is that the disparities in market income have increased tremendously and direct payments are tied to farm size after all.
A pair of recent papers analyze the new situation for farmers in the Swiss Alps. Chiara Calabrese and Gabriele Mack used an agent-based model to study how incomes of a large number of heterogeneous livestock farmer families would evolve until 2020. Different scenarios are explored (a not described status quo, more subsidy for summered livestock and lump sum subsidy to all alpine farmers proportional to farmed area). Results are not unexpected (no change, more summered livestock and income, less of both). Prices are assumed to grow at a steady rate unknown to reader. Give the recent wide fluctuations for food, that needs to be made more explicit and additional scenarios are needed. Also, this study basically assumes that the government does not face a budget constraint and will always be willing whatever it takes to maintain a policy. At least the costs of the program should be reported.
The other study by Nadja El Benni, Stefan Mann and Bernard Lehmann looks at how these direct payments to farmers influence the distribution of incomes. Due to the terrain, farms are small almost everywhere in the country, and Gini coefficients for farmer income have been rather low compared to other countries. The new policy increased the Gini coefficients even though the payments were implemented in part to redistribute income and they constitute now 79% of a farmers income. The reason is that the disparities in market income have increased tremendously and direct payments are tied to farm size after all.
The impact of poor climate
We often cannot choose where we live, especially as academics, and have to bite the bullet when we end up in places where the climate is less than favorable. You sometimes wonder why humans willingly decided to settle in numbers in uninviting places. And it matters, as people not like poor climate, but that may be compensate by other factors, like having a job. Still, climate matters for satisfaction.
David Maddison and Katrin Rehdanz document using the world values survey that poor climate has a significant impact on life satisfaction. The latter is defined by self-reported survey results, thus to be taken with a rock of salt, and poor climate is defined by a measure akin to a standard deviation from a comfortable temperature, 65F or 18C. How significant the impact is cannot be evaluated without seeing some statistics about the climate measure, but let us believe the authors for a moment. This means that, ceteribus paribus, people in Central America and some parts of Africa should be the happiest. Of course, all other things are not equal. And there may be others things that correlate with temperature variations that also have an impact of happiness. For example, long nights in the winter have a strong impact on depressions in Nordic countries.
Maddison and Rehdanz then proceed to look at the consequences of a climate change scenario which provides country specific temperature changes. From this exercise, they find that Europe will gain in satisfaction, the US will be unaffected and Africa will suffer tremendously. While this is an interesting first shot at the question, I am not quite sure I am willing to run with it. In particular because the initial elasticities may be tainted by correlates that do not vary with climate change (for example, length of night is not expect to change), and because climate change will have other important consequences, for example about the availability of fresh water. But at least, this paper gets us thinking about these issues, and it highlights that those who would suffer the most are those that have the least to do with the origin of climate change.
David Maddison and Katrin Rehdanz document using the world values survey that poor climate has a significant impact on life satisfaction. The latter is defined by self-reported survey results, thus to be taken with a rock of salt, and poor climate is defined by a measure akin to a standard deviation from a comfortable temperature, 65F or 18C. How significant the impact is cannot be evaluated without seeing some statistics about the climate measure, but let us believe the authors for a moment. This means that, ceteribus paribus, people in Central America and some parts of Africa should be the happiest. Of course, all other things are not equal. And there may be others things that correlate with temperature variations that also have an impact of happiness. For example, long nights in the winter have a strong impact on depressions in Nordic countries.
Maddison and Rehdanz then proceed to look at the consequences of a climate change scenario which provides country specific temperature changes. From this exercise, they find that Europe will gain in satisfaction, the US will be unaffected and Africa will suffer tremendously. While this is an interesting first shot at the question, I am not quite sure I am willing to run with it. In particular because the initial elasticities may be tainted by correlates that do not vary with climate change (for example, length of night is not expect to change), and because climate change will have other important consequences, for example about the availability of fresh water. But at least, this paper gets us thinking about these issues, and it highlights that those who would suffer the most are those that have the least to do with the origin of climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)