Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 55–74 | Cite as

Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral climate policy with directed technical change



Using a stylized theoretical model, we argue that current economic analyses of climate policy tend to over-estimate the degree of carbon leakage, as they abstract from the effects of induced technological change. We analyse carbon leakage in a two-country model with directed technical change, where only one of the countries enforces an exogenous cap on emissions. Climate policy induces changes in relative prices, that cause carbon leakage through a terms-of-trade effect. However, these changes in relative prices also affect the incentives to innovate in different sectors. This leads to a counterbalancing induced-technology effect, which always reduces carbon leakage. We therefore conclude that the leakage rates reported in the literature may be too high, as these estimates neglect the effect of price changes on the incentives to innovate.


Climate Policy Carbon Leakage Directed Technical Change International Trade 

JEL Classification

F18 O33 Q54 Q55 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acemoglu D (1998) Why do new technologies complement skills?. Directed technical change and wage inequality. Q J Econ 113:1055–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D (2002) Directed technical change. Rev Econ Stud 69:781–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoglu D (2007) Equilibrium bias of technology. Econometrica forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  4. Babiker MH (2005) Climate change policy, market structure and carbon leakage. J Int Econ 65:421–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894Google Scholar
  6. Bates RW, Moore EA (1992) Commercial energy efficiency and the environment. World Bank Working Paper Series 972, World BankGoogle Scholar
  7. Burniaux J, Oliveira-Martins J (2000) Carbon emission leakages: a general equilibrium view. OECD Economics Department Working Paper 242, OECD Economics DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  8. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1998) International environmental agreements: incentives and political economy. Eur Econ Rev 42:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2005) Free trade and global warming: a trade theory view of the KYOTO PROTOCOL. J Environ Econ Manage 49:205–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Di Maria C, Smulders S (2004) Trade pessimists vs technology optimists: induced technical change and pollution havens. Adv Econ Anal Policy 4(2) article 7Google Scholar
  11. Drandakis E, Phelps E (1965) A model of induced invention, growth and distribution. Econ J CXXVI:823–840Google Scholar
  12. Espey M (1998) Gasoline demand revisited: an international meta-analysis of elasticities. Energy Econ 20:273–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gately D, Huntington HG (2002) The asymmetric effects of changes in price and income on energy and oil demand. Energy J 23(1):19–55Google Scholar
  14. Golombek R, Hoel M (2004) Unilateral emission reductions and cross-country technology spillovers. Adv Econ Anal Policy 4(2) article 3Google Scholar
  15. 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(4/5):417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks J (1932) The theory of wages. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoel M (1991) Global environmental problems: the effects of unilateral actions taken by one country. J Environ Econ Manage 20:55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennedy C (1964) Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution. Econ J LXXIV:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuik O (2005) Climate change policies, international trade, and carbon leakage: an applied general equilibrium analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Free University, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Light M, Kolstad CD, Rutherford TF (2000) Coal markets, carbon leakage and the KYOTO PROTOCOL. Center for Economic Analysis Working Paper 23, University of Colorado at BoulderGoogle Scholar
  21. Newell R, Jaffe A, Stavins R (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Q J Econ 114:941–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pindyck RS, Rotemberg JJ (1983) Dynamic factor demands and the effects of energy price shocks. Am Econ Rev 73(5):1066–1079Google Scholar
  23. Popp D (2001) The effect of new technology on energy consumption. Resour Energy Econ 23:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. Am Econ Rev 92:160–180Google Scholar
  25. Rivera-Batiz LA, Romer PM (1991) Technological differences. Q J Econ CXVI:531–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silberberg E (1990) The structure of economics: a mathematical analysis. 2nd edn. MacGraw Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Taheri AA, Stevenson R (2002) Energy price, environmental policy, and technological bias. Energy J 23(4):85–107Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College DublinClonskeaghIreland
  2. 2.Kiel Institute for the World EconomyKielGermany

Personalised recommendations