|
on Resource Economics |
|
Issue of 2015‒06‒13
seven papers chosen by |
| By: | Faqin Lin (Central University of Finance and Economics (CUFE)); Nicholas C.S. Sim (School of Economics, University of Adelaide); Ngoc Pham (School of Economics, University of Adelaide) |
| Abstract: | Child mortality is a persistent problem for the worldÂ’s least developed countries (LDCs). Given that trade fosters economic development, one plausible solution is to raise the low levels oftrade in the LDCs, but how effective this approach might be could depend on the quality of institutions. In this paper, we use a novel instrumental variable approach to estimate the effect that trade might have on child mortality in the LDCs. We find that trade does not lead to lower levels of child mortality. In fact, in autocratic LDCs, trade could even cause child mortality to increase as we find that pollution, which adversely affects health, may rise with trade. |
| Keywords: | Child Mortality, Trade, Institutions, Environment, Least Developed Countries |
| JEL: | I3 O1 F18 P16 |
| Date: | 2015–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:adl:wpaper:2015-15&r=res |
| By: | Matthew S. Clancy; GianCarlo Moschini (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)) |
| Abstract: | Mandates are policy tools that are becoming increasingly popular to promote renewable energy use. In addition to mitigating the pollution externality of conventional energy, mandates have the potential to promote R&D investments in renewable energy technology. But how well do mandates perform as innovation incentives? To address this question, we develop a partial equilibrium model with endogenous innovation to examine the R&D incentives induced by a mandate, and compare this policy to two benchmark situations: laissez-faire and a carbon tax. Innovation is stochastic and the model permits an endogenous number of multiple innovators. We find that mandates can improve upon laissez faire, and that the prospect of innovation is essential for their desirability. However, mandates suffer from several limitations. A mandate creates relatively strong incentives for investment in R&D in low-quality innovations, but relatively weak incentives to invest in high-quality innovations, so that the dispersion of realized innovation quality is comparatively low. Moreover, a mandate achieves lower welfare than a carbon tax, and its optimal level is more sensitive to the structure of the innovation process. Key Words: Carbon tax, Incentive, Innovation, Mandates, Renewable energy, R&D, Welfare. JEL codes: H23, O31, Q42, Q55, Q58 |
| Date: | 2015–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ias:cpaper:15-wp557&r=res |
| By: | Tetsuya Uetake |
| Abstract: | Agriculture is a provider of commodities such as food, feed, fibre and fuel and, it can also bring both positive and negative impacts on the environment such as biodiversity, water and soil quality. These environmental externalities from agricultural activities may also have characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability. When they have these characteristics, they can be defined as agri-environmental public goods. Agri-environmental public goods need not necessarily be desirable; that is, they may cause harm and can be defined as agri-environmental public bads. Public Goods and Externalities: Agri-environmental Policy Measures in Japan aims to improve understanding of the best policy measures to provide agri-environmental public goods and reduce agri-environmental public bads by looking at the experiences of Japan. This report provides information to contribute to policy design that addresses the provision of agri-environmental public goods, including the reduction of agri-environmental public bads. It is one of five country case studies (Australia, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States) which provide input into the main OECD book, Public goods and externalities: Agri-environmental policy measures in selected OECD countries |
| Keywords: | Japan, public goods, externalities, agri-environmental policies |
| JEL: | Q52 Q53 Q54 Q55 Q56 Q57 Q58 |
| Date: | 2015–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:agraaa:81-en&r=res |
| By: | James S. Shortle |
| Abstract: | Agriculture is a provider of commodities such as food, feed, fibre and fuel and, it can also bring both positive and negative impacts on the environment such as biodiversity, water and soil quality. These environmental externalities from agricultural activities may also have characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability. When they have these characteristics, they can be defined as agri-environmental public goods. Agri-environmental public goods need not necessarily be desirable; that is, they may cause harm and can be defined as agri-environmental public bads. Public Goods and Externalities: Agri-environmental Policy Measures in the United States aims to improve our understanding of the best policy measures to provide agri-environmental public goods and reduce agri-environmental public bads, by looking at the experiences of the United States. This report provides information to contribute to policy design addressing the provision of agri-environmental public goods including the reduction of agri-environmental public bads. It is one of the five country case studies (Australia, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States), which provide inputs into the main OECD book, Public Goods, Externalities and Agri-environmental Policy Measures. |
| Keywords: | United States, public goods, externalities, agri-environmental policies |
| JEL: | Q52 Q53 Q54 Q56 Q57 Q58 |
| Date: | 2015–06–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:agraaa:84-en&r=res |
| By: | James Jones; Paul Silcock |
| Abstract: | Agriculture is a provider of commodities such as food, feed, fibre and fuel and, it can also bring both positive and negative impacts on the environment such as biodiversity, water and soil quality. These environmental externalities from agricultural activities may also have characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability. When they have these characteristics, they can be defined as agri-environmental public goods. Agri-environmental public goods need not necessarily be desirable; that is, they may cause harm and can be defined as agri-environmental public bads. Public Goods and Externalities: Agri-environmental Policy Measures in the United Kingdom aims to improve our understanding of the best policy measures to provide agri-environmental public goods and reduce agri-environmental public bads, by looking at the experiences of the United Kingdom. This report provides information to contribute to policy design addressing the provision of agri-environmental public goods including the reduction of agri-environmental public bads. It is one of the five country case studies (Australia, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States), which provide inputs into the main OECD book, Public Goods, Externalities and Agri-environmental Policy Measures in Selected OECD Countries. |
| Keywords: | United Kingdom, public goods, externalities, agri-environmental policies |
| Date: | 2015–06–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:agraaa:83-en&r=res |
| By: | Raymond Schrijver; Tetsuya Uetake |
| Abstract: | Agriculture is a provider of commodities such as food, feed, fibre and fuel and, it can also bring both positive and negative impacts on the environment such as biodiversity, water and soil quality. These environmental externalities from agricultural activities may also have characteristics of non-rivalry and non-excludability. When they have these characteristics, they can be defined as agri-environmental public goods. Agri-environmental public goods need not necessarily be desirable; that is, they may cause harm and can be defined as agri-environmental public bads. Public Goods and Externalities: Agri-environmental Policy Measures in the Netherlands aims to improve our understanding of the best policy measures to provide agri-environmental public goods and reduce agri-environmental public bads, by looking at the experiences of the Netherlands. This report provides information to contribute to policy design addressing the provision of agri-environmental public goods including the reduction of agri-environmental public bads. It is one of the five country case studies (Australia, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States), which provide inputs into the main OECD book, Public Goods, Externalities and Agri-environmental Policy Measures in Selected OECD Countries. |
| Keywords: | Netherlands, public goods, externalities, agri-environmental policies |
| Date: | 2015–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:agraaa:82-en&r=res |
| By: | Simon Levin; Anastasios Xepapadeas |
| Abstract: | We seek to explain the emergence of spatial heterogeneity regarding development and pollution on the basis of interactions associated with the movement of capital and polluting activities from one economy to another. We use a simple dynamical model describing capital accumulation along the lines of a xed-savings-ratio Solow-type model capable of producing endogenous growth and convergence behavior, and pollution accumulation in each country with pollution diffusion between countries or regions. The basic mechanism underlying the movements of capital across space is the quest for locations where the marginal productivity of capital is relatively higher than the productivity at the location of origin. The notion that capital moves to locations of relatively higher productivity but not necessarily from locations of high concentration to locations of low concentration, does not face difficulties associated with the Lucas paradox. We show that, for a wide range of capital and pollution rates of flow, spatial heterogeneity emerges even between two economies with identical fundamental structures. These results can be interpreted as suggesting that the neoclassical convergence hypothesis might not hold under differential rates of flow of capital and polluting activities among countries of the same fundamental structure. |
| Keywords: | Transboundary flows, Capital, Pollution, Diffusion, Turing instability, Spatial heterogeneity |
| JEL: | O44 R12 Q52 C65 |
| Date: | 2015–06–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aue:wpaper:1512&r=res |