Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: A survey

Ecological Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 2-3, 2002, Pages 105-126

  Löschel, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Energy economy environment models; Exogenous technological change; Induced technological change

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE;

EID: 0036906315     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00209-4     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Alcamo, J., Kreileman, E., Leemans, R., 1998. Global Change Scenarios of the 21st Century, Results from the IMAGE 2.1 Model. Elseviers Science, London.
2. Anderson, D., 1999. Technical Progress and Pollution Abatement: An Economic Review of Selected Technologies and Practices, Imperial College Working Paper, London.
3. Anderson, D., Grubb, M. and Köhler, J., 2000. Induced Technical Change in Energy/Environmental Modeling: Analytic Approaches and Implications. Imperial College Working Paper, London.
4. Arrow, K., 1962. The economic implications of learning-by-doing. Review of Economic Studies 29, 155-173.
5. Arthur, B., 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical small events. Economic Journal 99, 116-131.
6. Arthur, B., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in Economics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
7. Azar, C., Dowlatabadi, H., 1999. A review of the treatment of technical change in energy economics models. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 24, 513-544.
8. Babiker, M.H., Reilly, J.M., Mayer, M., Eckaus, R.S., Wing, I.S., Hyman, R.C., 2001. The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Revisions, Sensitivities, and Comparisons of Results. Report No. 71, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
9. 2 emissions using excise duties. Fiscal Studies 19, 375-402.
10. Barreto, L. and Kypreos, S., 1999. Technological Learning in Energy Models: Experience and Scenario Analysis with MARKAL and the ERIS Model Prototype. PSI Report No. 99-08, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villingen, Switzerland.
11. Beghin, J., Roland-Holst, D., van der Mensbrugghe, D., 1995. Trade liberalization and the environment in the pacific basin: Coordinated approaches to Mexican Trade and environment policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77, 778-785.
12. Bergman, L., 1990. Energy and environmental constraints on growth: A CGE modeling approach. Journal of Policy Modeling 12, 671-691.
13. Binswanger, M., 2001. Technological progress and sustainable development: What about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics 36, 119-132.
14. Böhringer, C., 1998. The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling. Energy Economics 20, 234-248.
15. Böhringer, C., 1999. PACE - Policy Assessment Based on Computable Equilibrium, ein Flexibles Modellsystem zur Gesamtwirtschaftlichen Analyse von Wirtschaftspolitischen Maßnahmen. ZEW Dokumentation, Centre for European Economic Research Mannheim, Germany.
16. Böhringer, C., Jensen, J., Rutherford, T.F., 2000. Energy market projections and differentiated carbon abatement in the European union. In: Carraro, C. (Ed.), Efficiency and Equity of Climate Change Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 199-220.
17. Böhringer, C., Löschel, A., 2002. Economic impacts of carbon abatement strategies. In: Böhringer, C., Finus, M., Vogt, C. (Eds.), Controlling Global Warming-Perspectives from Economics, Game Theory and Public Choice (New Horizons in Environmental Economics). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 98-172.
18. Boston Consulting Group, 1968. Perspectives on Experience. Boston Consulting Group Inc.
19. Botteon, M., Carraro, C. Galeotti, M., 1994. Endogenous Technical Change in Econometric Models of Environmental Policy: Issues and Proposed Strategies. Nota di Lavoro 79.1994, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milan, Italy.
20. Bovenberg, A.L., Smulders, S., 1995. Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model. Journal of Public Economics 57, 369-391.
21. Buonanno, P, Carraro C, Galeotti, M. 2001. Endogenous Induced Technical Change and the Costs of Kyoto. Nota di Lavoro 64.2001, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) Milan, Italy.
22. 2 Emissions: A Technical Manual. Working Paper 116, Economics and Statistics Department, OECD, Paris.
23. Capros, P., Georgakopoulos, T., Van Regemorter, D., Proost, S., Schmidt, T.F.N., Conrad, K., 1997. European Union - The GEM-E3 general equilibrium model. Economic and Financial, Modelling Special Double Issue 4, 51-160.
24. Carraro, C., 1998. Climate modelling and policy strategies. The role of technical change and uncertainty. Energy Economics 20, 463-471.
25. Carraro, C., Galeotti, M., 1996. WARM: A European model for energy and environmental analysis. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 1, 171-189.
26. Carraro, C., Galeotti, M., 1997. Economic growth, international competitiveness and environmental protection: R & D and innovation strategies with the WARM model. Energy Economics 19, 2-28.
27. Christiansson, L., 1995. Diffusion and Learning Curves of Renewable Energy Technologies. Working Paper WP-95-126, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
28. Conrad, K., 2001. Computable General Equilibrium Models in Environmental and Resource Economics. Beiträge zur angewandten Wirtschaftsforschung 601-01. Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre und Statistik, Mannheim University, Mannheim, Germany.
29. Conrad, K., Henseler-Unger, I., 1986. Applied general equilibrium modelling for longterm energy policy in the Fed. Rep. of Germany. Journal of Policy Modelling 8, 531-549.
30. David, P.A., 1985. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review 75, 332-337.
31. Dowlatabadi, H., 1998. Sensitivity of climate change mitigation estimates to assumptions about technical change. Energy Economics 20, 473-493.
32. Dowlatabadi, H., Oravetz, M., 1997. US Long-term Energy Intensity: Backcast and Projection. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
33. Edmonds, J., Roop, J.M., Scott, M.J., 2000. Technology and the Economics of Climate Change Policy. Pew Center on Global Climate Change Report, Batelle, Washington, DC.
34. Edmonds, J., Wise, M., Dooley, J., 1997. Atmospheric stabilization and the role of energy technology. In: Walker, C.E., Bloomfield, M.A., Thorning, M. (Eds.), Climate Change Policy, Risk Prioritization and US Economic Growth. American Council for Capital Formation, Washington, DC, pp. 71-94.
35. EMF(Energy Modeling Forum), 1996. Markets for energy efficiency. EMF Report 13, Volume I, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
36. 2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 1-38.
37. 2 emissions abatement. Resource and Environmental Economics 21, 211-253.
38. Griliches, Z., 1957. Hybrid corn: An explorationin the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25, 501-522.
39. Griliches, Z., 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics 10, 92-116.
40. Griliches, Z., 1992. The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94, 29-47.
41. Gritsevskyi, A., Nakicenovic, N., 2000. Modeling uncertainty of induced technological change. Energy Policy 28, 907-921.
42. Grossman, G., Helpman, E., 1994. Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 23-44.
43. 2 abatement: An overview of economic issues. Energy Policy 25, 159-172.
44. Grubb, M., 2000. Economic dimensions of technological and global responses to the kyoto protocol. Journal of Economic Studies 27, 111-125.
45. Grubb, M. and Köhler, J., 2000. Induced Technical Change: Evidence and Implications for Energy-Environmental Modelling and Policy. Report to the Deputy Secretary-General Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
46. Grubb, M., Chapuis, T., Ha-Duong, M., 1995. The economics of changing course: Implications of adaptability and inertia for optimal climate policy. Energy Policy 23, 417-431.
47. 2 emissions: A survey and analysis. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 18, 397-478.
48. Grübler, A., Messner, S., 1998. Technological change and the timing of mitigation measures. Energy Economics 20, 495-512.
49. Grübler, A., Nakicenovic, N., Victor, D.G., 1999. Modeling technological change: Implications for the global environment. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 24, 545-569.
50. 2 emission abatement. Nature 390, 270-273.
51. Hicks, J., 1932. The Theory of Wages. Macmillan, London.
52. Hourcade, J-C., Robinson, J., 1996. Mitigating factors: Assessing the costs of reducing GHG emissions. Energy Policy 24, 863-873.
53. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2000. Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy. IEA, Paris.
54. IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), 2001. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Jacobsen, H.K., 2001. Technological progress and long-term energy demand: A survey of recent approaches and a Danish case. Energy Policy, 29, 147-157.
56. Jaffe, B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., 2000. Technological Change and the Environment. RFF Discussion Paper 00-47, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
57. Jones, C.T., 1994. Accounting for technical progress in aggregate energy demand. Energy Economics 16, 245-252.
58. Jorgenson, D.W., Wilcoxen, P.J., 1990. Intertemporal general equilibrium modeling of US environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Modeling 12, 715-744.
59. Kaldor, N., 1957. A model of economic growth, Economic Journal 67, 591-624.
60. 2 abatement: Evidence for germany. Journal of Policy Modeling 22, 641-660.
61. Kline, S.J., Rosenberg, N., 1986. An over view information. In: Lundvall, B.A., Rosenberg, N. (Eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. National Academy Press, Washington: DC.
62. Kouvaritakis, N., Soria, A., Isoard, S., 2000. Modelling energy technology dynamics: Methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 14, 104-115.
63. Kverndokk, S., Rosendahl, K.E., Rutherford, T.F., 2000. Climate Policies and Induced Technological Change: Which to Choose the Carrot or the Stick? Discussion Paper, University of Colorado, Boulder.
64. Kypreos, S., 2000. The MERGE model with endogenous technological change. Paper presented at the Workshop 'Economic Modelling of Environmental Policy and Endogenous Technological Change, Amsterdam, 16-17 November 2000.
65. Kypreos, S. and Barreto, L., 1998. A simple global electricity MARKAL model with endogenous learning. Paper presented at the Joint ALEP/ETSAP Workshop, Antalya, Turkey, 26-28 October 1998.
66. Lee, K., Pesaran, M.H., Pierse, R.G., 1990. Aggregation bias in labour demand equations for the UK economy. In: Barker, T., Pesaran, M.H. (Eds.), Disaggregation in Econometric Modelling. Routledge, London.
67. Lucas, R.E., 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 100, 223-251.
68. Mabey, N., Hall, S., Smith, C., Gupta, S., 1997. Argument in the Greenhouse: The International Economics of Controlling Global Warming. Routledge, London.
69. Mackay, R.M., Probert, S.D., 1998. Likely market-penetration of renewable-energy technologies. Applied Energy 59, 1-38.
70. Manne, A.S., 1981. ETA-MACRO: A Users Guide EA-1724. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
71. Manne, A.S. and Barreto, L., 2001. Learn-by-doing and Carbon Dioxide Abatement. Interim Report IR-01-057, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
72. 2 emission - A further sensitivity analysis. The Energy Journal 11, 69-78.
73. 2 Emission Limits. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
74. 2 emissions: A probabilistic analysis based on expert judgements. The Energy Journal 15, 31-56.
75. Manne, A.S., Richels, R.G., 1999. The Kyoto protocol: A cost effective strategy for meeting environmental objectives? In: J. Weyant (Editor), The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. The Energy Journal, Special Issue, 1-23.
76. Mattsson, N., Wene, C.-O., 1997. ERIS: A model prototype with endogenous technological learning. International Journal of Energy Research 21, 385-393.
77. McDonald, A., Schrattenholzer, L., 2001. Learning rates for energy technologies. Energy Policy 29, 255-261.
78. Messner, S., 1997. Endogenised technological learning in an energy systems model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 7, 291-313.
79. Messner, S., Schrattenholzer, L., 1998. Experiences from Including Technology Progress Dynamics into the Global Optimization Model MESSAGE. ECS Contribution to the Mid-Term Assessment Report of the TEEM Project, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
80. Neij, L., 1997. Use of experience curves to analyze the prospects for diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 23, 1099-1107.
81. Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
82. Nordhaus, W., 1994. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
83. Nordhaus, W., 1999. Modeling induced innovation in climate-change policy. Paper presented at the Workshop on Induced Technological Change and the Environment, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenberg, Austria, June 1999.
84. Nordhaus, W.D., Boyer, J., 1999. Roll the DICE Again: The Economics of Global Warming. Yale University, New Haven Connecticut.
85. Papathanasiou, D., Anderson, D., 2001. Uncertainties in responding to climate change: On the economic value of technology policies for reducing costs and creating options. The Energy Journal 22, 79-114.
86. Peck, S.C., Teisberg, T.J., 1992. CETA: A model for carbon emissions trajectory assessment. The Energy Journal 13, 55-77.
87. 2 emissions control agreements: Incentives for regional participation. In: J. Weyant (Eds.), The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. The Energy Journal, Special Issue, 367-390.
88. Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 97-118.
89. Rogers, E., 1995. The Diffussion of Innovation, fourth Ed.. Free Press, New York.
90. Romer, P.M., 1990. Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy 98, 71-102.
91. Rosenberg, N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
92. Rutherford, T.F., 1999. Sequential joint maximization. In: Weyant, J. (Ed.), Energy and Environmental Policy Modeling (International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 18). Kluwer, Boston, pp. 139-175.
93. Ruttan, V.W., 1997. Induced innovation evolutionary theory and path dependence: Sources of technical change. The Economic Journal 107, 1520-1529.
94. Schneider, S.H., Goulder, L.H., 1997. Achieving low-cost emissions targets. Nature 389, 13-14.
95. Schumpeter, J., 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper, New York.
96. Seebregts, A.J., Kram, T., Schaeffer, G.J., Stoffer, A., Kypreos, S., Barreto, L., Messner, S., Schrattenholzer, L., 1999. Endogenous Technological Change in Energy System Models, Synthesis of Experience with ERIS, MARKAL and MESSAGE. ECN-C-99-025. ECN Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, Petten, The Netherlands.
97. Seebregts, A.J., Bos, S., Kram, T., Schaeffer, G.J., 2000. Endogenous learning and technology clustering: Analysis with MARKAL model of the western european energy system. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 14, 289-319.
98. Schmookler, J., 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
99. Solow, R.M., 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 71-102.
100. Solow, R.M., 1959. Investment and technological progress. In: Arrow, K., Karlin, S., Suppes, P. (Eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 89-104.
101. Tol, R.S.J., 1999. Spatial and temporal efficiency in climate policy: Applications of FUND. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 33-49.
102. Ulph, D., 1997. Environmental policy and technological innovation. In: Carraro, C., Siniscalco, D. (Eds.), New Directions in the Economic Theory of the Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
103. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2000. World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability. UNDP, New York.
104. Weyant, J., (Eds.), 1999. The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. The Energy Journal, Special Issue.
105. Weyant, J., 2000. The Economy and Global Climate Change: An Introduction to the Economics of Climate Change Policy. Batelle, Washington, DC.
106. Weyant, J., Olavson, T., 1999. Issues in Modeling Induced Technological Change in Energy, Environment and Climate Policy. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 4, 67-85.
107. 2 concentrations. Nature 379, 240-243.