[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ekd/010027/10233.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental Policy Instruments Response to Trade Shocks

Author

Listed:
  • Shreekar Pradhan
  • S. Holladay
  • M. Mohsin
Abstract
How do environmental policy instruments respond to trade shocks? Emerging studies show that the surge of low-cost exports from China has led to downward pressure on the price of traded goods (Kamin, Marazzi, and Schindler, 2006; Amiti and Freund,2010; Mandel, 2013). China's entry into the world economy has led to a big movement in the terms of trade and an increase in imports in much of the rest of the world. We ask how such fluctuations in the terms of trade affect the choice of environmental policy instruments. The existing literature that evaluates environmental policy instruments' merits under uncertainty employs a closed-economy framework. This limits their ability to address this question. We analyze the properties of environmental policy instruments under uncertainties for an economy open to international trade and capital flows. We document the economic responses to environmental regulation under uncertain economic growth and unanticipated import surges. To do so, we develop a small open economy (SOE) dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model that incorporates three environmental policy instruments which are certainty equivalent in emissions: cap-and-trade, pollution tax, and an emission intensity standard, which sets an allowed emissions level per unit of output. We introduce exogenous temporary productivity shocks to simulate uncertain economic growth and an exogenous temporary terms-of-trade shock to simulate an unanticipated import surge. We then compare the effects on key macroeconomic variables -welfare, pollution levels, outputs, consumption, investment, supply of labor and trade flows -in the economy across cap-and-trade, pollution tax, and emissions intensity standard policy instruments. Our results suggest that cap-and-trade policies reduce the business cycle's intensity relative to a pollution tax or intensity target. This is consistent with the findings of Fischer and Springborn (2011); Annicchiarico and Dio (2015) in closed economy models. Allowing the regulated economy to access global product and investment markets does not affect the key findings of the existing literature. More interestingly for a terms of trade shock all three policy instruments have a similar impact on key economic variables like consumption and employment. The cap-and-trade policy is most effective in reducing the surge in imports. In this way cap-and-trade policies can act as an unintended trade barrier, reducing the severity of import competition during times when it is most intense.

Suggested Citation

  • Shreekar Pradhan & S. Holladay & M. Mohsin, 2017. "Environmental Policy Instruments Response to Trade Shocks," EcoMod2017 10233, EcoMod.
    • Handle: RePEc:ekd:010027:10233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ecomod.net/system/files/env_pol_RBC_v13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert C. Feenstra & Robert Inklaar & Marcel P. Timmer, 2015. "The Next Generation of the Penn World Table," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(10), pages 3150-3182, October.
    2. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    3. McAusland, Carol, 2008. "Trade, politics, and the environment: Tailpipe vs. smokestack," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 52-71, January.
    4. Shrestha, Ratna K., 2001. "The choice of environmental policy instruments under correlated uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 175-185, April.
    5. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    6. Konstantinos Angelopoulos & George Economides & Apostolis Philippopoulos, 2013. "First-and second-best allocations under economic and environmental uncertainty," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(3), pages 360-380, June.
    7. William A. Pizer, 2005. "The case for intensity targets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 455-462, July.
    8. Stavins, Robert N., 1996. "Correlated Uncertainty and Policy Instrument Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 218-232, March.
    9. Quirion, Philippe, 2005. "Does uncertainty justify intensity emission caps?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 343-353, November.
    10. Carolyn Fischer & Garth Heutel, 2013. "Environmental Macroeconomics: Environmental Policy, Business Cycles, and Directed Technical Change," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 197-210, June.
    11. Cameron Hepburn, 2006. "Regulation by Prices, Quantities, or Both: A Review of Instrument Choice," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 226-247, Summer.
    12. Garth Heutel, 2012. "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(2), pages 244-264, April.
    13. Sonja Peterson, 2008. "Intensity targets: implications for the economic uncertainties of emissions trading," Springer Books, in: Bernd Hansjürgens & Ralf Antes (ed.), Economics and Management of Climate Change, pages 97-110, Springer.
    14. Clemens Heuson, 2010. "Weitzman Revisited: Emission Standards Versus Taxes with Uncertain Abatement Costs and Market Power of Polluting Firms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 349-369, November.
    15. Stephanie Schmitt-Grohe & Martin Uribe, 2001. "Stabilization policy and the costs of dollarization," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, pages 482-517.
    16. Copeland Brian R., 1994. "International Trade and the Environment: Policy Reform in a Polluted Small Open Economy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 44-65, January.
    17. Garth Heutel, 2012. "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(2), pages 244-264, April.
    18. Fabio Antoniou & Panos Hatzipanayotou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2012. "Second Best Environmental Policies under Uncertainty," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(3), pages 1019-1040, January.
    19. Webster, Mort & Sue Wing, Ian & Jakobovits, Lisa, 2010. "Second-best instruments for near-term climate policy: Intensity targets vs. the safety valve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 250-259, May.
    20. Mendoza, Enrique G. & Uribe, Martin, 2000. "Devaluation risk and the business-cycle implications of exchange-rate management," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 239-296, December.
    21. A. Denny Ellerman & Ian Sue Wing, 2003. "Absolute versus intensity-based emission caps," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(sup2), pages 7-20, December.
    22. Steven B. Kamin & Mario Marazzi & John W. Schindler, 2006. "The Impact of Chinese Exports on Global Import Prices," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 179-201, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shreekar Pradhan & J. Scott Holladay & Mohammed Mohsin & Shreekar Pradhan, 2015. "Environmental Policy Instruments and Uncertainties Under Free Trade and Capital Mobility," EcoMod2015 8102, EcoMod.
    2. J. Scott Holladay & Mohammed Mohsin & Shreekar Pradhan, 2019. "Environmental Policy Instrument Choice and International Trade," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(4), pages 1585-1617, December.
    3. Jinhua Zhao, 2022. "Aggregate emission intensity targets: Applications to the Paris Agreement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(4), pages 1875-1897, October.
    4. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    5. Thomas D. Jeitschko & Pallavi Pal, 2021. "Curbing Price Fluctuations in Cap-and-Trade Auctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9266, CESifo.
    6. Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio Di Dio, 2017. "GHG Emissions Control and Monetary Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(4), pages 823-851, August.
    7. Batten, Sandra & Millard, Stephen, 2024. "Energy and climate policy in a DSGE model of the United Kingdom," Bank of England working papers 1064, Bank of England.
    8. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    9. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Karp, Larry & Traeger, Christian, 2024. "Taxes versus quantities reassessed," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. Anna Grodecka & Karlygash Kuralbayeva, 2014. "The Price vs Quantity debate: climate policy and the role of business cycles," OxCarre Working Papers 137, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
    12. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Diluiso, Francesca, 2019. "International transmission of the business cycle and environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    13. Barbara Annicchiarico & Marco Carli & Francesca Diluiso, 2022. "Climate Policies, Macroprudential Regulation, and the Welfare Cost of Business Cycles," CEIS Research Paper 543, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 31 Oct 2022.
    14. Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio Di Dio, 2014. "Ramsey Monetary Policy and GHG Emission Control," CEIS Research Paper 330, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 24 Sep 2014.
    15. Jussi Lintunen & Lauri Vilmi, 2021. "Optimal Emission Prices Over the Business Cycles," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 135-167, September.
    16. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 187277, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Kollenberg, Sascha & Taschini, Luca, 2016. "Emissions trading systems with cap adjustments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 20-36.
    18. Chan, Ying Tung & Zhao, Hong, 2019. "How do credit market frictions affect carbon cycles? an estimated DSGE model approach," MPRA Paper 106987, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 05 Dec 2020.
    19. Francesco Busato & Bruno Chiarini & Gianluigi Cisco & Maria Ferrara, 2023. "Green preferences," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 3211-3253, April.
    20. Olli-Pekka Kuuselaa & Gregory S. Amacher & Kwok Ping Tsang, 2013. "Intensity-Based Permit Quotas and the Business Cycle: Does Flexibility Pay Off?," Research Department Publications IDB-WP-450, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ekd:010027:10233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Theresa Leary (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecomoea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.