Does a Recession Call for Less Stringent Environmental Policy? A Partial-Equilibrium Second-Best Analysis

Article

Abstract

This paper analyses second-best optimal environmental policy responses to real and financial shocks in a two-period partial equilibrium model with heterogeneous firms, an environmental externality, and credit constraints. We show that, to alleviate credit constraints and encourage investment, the second-best optimal emission tax falls short of marginal emission damages. The optimal response to shocks depends on how the shock affects the size of the environmental and credit market failures and the effectiveness of the tax in alleviating these market failures. Under mildly restrictive assumptions on functional forms, the optimal response to a (persistent) negative productivity shock or a tightening of credit is to reduce the emission tax. Our results are informative for how climate change policy should optimally change with the business cycle.

Keywords

Credit constraints Credit shock Second-best optimal emission tax Productivity shock 

References

  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion P, Angeletos GM, Banerjee A, Manova K (2010) Volatility and growth: credit constraints and the composition of investment. J Monet Econ 57(3):246–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aghion P, Askenazy P, Berman N, Cette G, Eymard L (2012) Credit constraints and the cyclicality of r&d investment: evidence from france. J Eur Econ Assoc 10(5):1001–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aghion P, Hemous D, Kharroubi E (2014) Cyclical fiscal policy, credit constraints, and industry growth. J Monet Econ 62:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelopoulos K, Economides G, Philippopoulos A (2010) What is the best environmental policy? Taxes, permits and rules under economic and environmental uncertainty. CESifo working paper series 2980, CESifo Group MunichGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassetto M, Cagetti M, De Nardi M (2015) Credit crunches and credit allocation in a model of entrepreneurship. Rev Econ Dyn 18(1):53–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernanke B, Gertler M (1989) Agency costs, net worth, and business fluctuations. Am Econ Rev 79(1):14–31Google Scholar
  8. Bernanke BS, Gertler M, Gilchrist S (1999) The financial accelerator in a quantitative business cycle framework. Handb Macroecon 1:1341–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowen A, Stern N (2010) Environmental policy and the economic downturn. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 26(2):137–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bréchet T, Meunier G (2014) Are clean technology and environmental quality conflicting policy goals? Resour Energy Econ 38:61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buera FJ, Shin Y (2013) Financial frictions and the persistence of history: a quantitative exploration. J Polit Econ 121(2):221–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Maria C, Smulders S (2017) A paler shade of green: environmental policy under induced technical change. Eur Econ Rev. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.01.002
  13. Dissou Y, Karnizova L (2017) Emissions cap or emissions tax? A multi-sector business cycle analysis. J Environ Econ Manag 79:169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer C, Heutel G (2013) Environmental macroeconomics: environmental policy, business cycles, and directed technical change. Annu Rev Resour Econ 5(1):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer C, Springborn M (2011) Emissions targets and the real business cycle: intensity targets versus caps or taxes. J Environ Econ Manag 62(3):352–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gans JS (2012) Innovation and climate change policy. Am Econ J Econ Policy 4(4):125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerlagh R, Liski M (2017) Consistent climate policies. J Eur Econ Assoc. doi:10.1093/jeea/jvx010
  18. Gertler M, Kiyotaki N (2010) Financial intermediation and credit policy in business cycle analysis. Handb Monet Econ 3(3):547–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gil-Molto MJ, Dijkstra B (2011) Strictness of environmental policy and investment in abatement. Discussion Papers in Economics 11/35, Department of Economics, University of LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillingham K, Rapson D, Wagner G (2016) The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Rev Environ Econ Policy 10(1):68–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golosov M, Hassler J, Krusell P, Tsyvinski A (2014) Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica 82(1):41–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guardian (2009) Australia delays carbon trading. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/05/australia-delays-carbon-trading
  23. Heutel G (2012) How should environmental policy respond to business cycles? Optimal policy under persistent productivity shocks. Rev Econ Dyn 15(2):244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Houser T, Mohan S, Heilmayr R (2009) A green global recovery? assessing us economic stimulus and the prospects for international coordination. Policy Brief PB09-3, Peterson Institute for International EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  25. Itskhoki O, Moll B (2014) Optimal development policies with financial frictions. NBER working paper 19994, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobsen GD (2013) Do economic conditions influence environmental policy? Evidence from the us senate. Econ Lett 120(2):167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khan A, Thomas JK (2013) Credit shocks and aggregate fluctuations in an economy with production heterogeneity. J Polit Econ 121(6):1055–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiyotaki N, Moore J (1997) Credit cycles. J Polit Econ 105(2):211–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nobelprizeorg (2007) The nobel peace prize 2007. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org
  30. Perino G, Requate T (2012) Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted u-shaped. J Environ Econ Manag 64(3):456–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Requate T, Unold W (2003) Environmental policy incentives to adopt advanced abatement technology: will the true ranking please stand up? Eur Econ Rev 47(1):125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romer D (2006) Advanced macroeconomics, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (2009) Global green new deal policy brief. Policy Brief, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  34. van den Bijgaart IM, Gerlagh R, Liski M (2016) A simple formula for the social cost of carbon. J Environ Econ Manag 77:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wall Street Journal (2010) Refiners fight emission law. Retrieved from http://on.wsj.com/12jLrMO

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Economics, CentER, and TSCTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations