Advertisement

A Two-Sector Model of Economic Growth with Endogenous Technical Change and Pollution Abatement

  • Jean-Pierre Amigues
  • Tunç DurmazEmail author
Article
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

We provide insights into the relationships between technological development, economic growth, and pollution accumulation using a two-sector model of economic growth with endogenous technical change. In the model, output is produced using a polluting resource. Production can be used for either consumption or abatement of pollution. Scientists can be allocated between two research activities: resource-saving and abatement-augmenting technologies. Our results indicate conditional path dependency. Specifically, when the innovative capacity in the resource-saving research sector is sufficiently high, scientists are allocated to improve only the resource-saving technology, independently of the state of the technologies and environment. Consequently, the allocation of researchers is path-independent. When the innovative capacity in the abatement-augmenting research sector is sufficiently high, the optimal allocation of researchers depends on the initial level of the pollution stock or technologies but eventually will be directed to improve the abatement technology. We further characterize the optimal steady-state and off-steady-state dynamics and show that green growth is always socially optimal. By using a two-sector model, we address a lack of attention to multi-sector growth models in neoclassical growth theory and show that distinct results and transitional dynamics can emerge.

Keywords

Green growth Endogenous technical change Path dependency Environmental Kuznets curve Clean backstop Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Burak Ünveren, Cees Withagen, Fred Schroyen, Gunnar Eskeland, Linda Nøstbakken, Snorre Kverndok, Tetsu Haruyama, Eric Bond, Prudence Dato, Tuna Dinç, Can Askan Mavi, and two anonymous referees for many useful and constructive discussions on this topic, and Rögnvaldur Hannesson, Leif Sandal, and Sophie Lian Zhou for their detailed comments. We have also benefited from the comments and suggestions of the participants at the EAERE 22nd Annual Conference, Rokko Forum, the Bergen Economics of Energy and Environment Research Conference, and the Joint UiB-NHH PhD Workshop.

Funding Information

This work received financial support from the Center for Sustainable Energy Studies (CenSES).

References

  1. 1.
    Acemoglu, D. (2002). Directed technical change. The Review of Economic Studies, 69(4), 781–809.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acemoglu, D. (2003). Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Acemoglu, D. (2009). Introduction to modern economic growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Acemoglu, D, Aghion, P, Bursztyn, L, Hémous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102(1), 131–166.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Acemoglu, D, Aghion, P, Hémous, D. (2014). The environment and directed technical change in a north–south model. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(3), 513–530.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Acemoglu, D, Akcigit, U, Hanley, D, Kerr, W. (2016). Transition to clean technology. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 52–104.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aghion, P, & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aghion, P, & Howitt, P. (2009). The economics of growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aghion, P, & Akcigit, U. (2014). What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory?. In Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 2, pp. 515–563). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aghion, P, Dechezleprêtre, A, Hémous, D, Martin, R, Van Reenen, J. (2016). Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 1–51.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amigues, JP, & Moreaux, M. (2013). The atmospheric carbon resilience problem: a theoretical analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 35(4), 618–636.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amigues, JP, Lafforgue, G, Moreaux, M. (2014). Optimal timing of ccs policies with heterogeneous energy consumption sectors. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57(3), 345–366.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andreoni, J, & Levinson, A. (2001). The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Public Economics, 80(2), 269–286.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Attanasio, O. (1996). Relative wage movements and the distribution of consumption. Journal of Political Economy, 104(6), 1227–1262.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Attanasio, OP, & Weber, G. (1993). Consumption growth, the interest rate and aggregation. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 631–649.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Attanasio, O, & Weber, G. (1995). Is consumption growth consistent with intertemporal optimization? Evidence from the consumer expenditure survey. Journal of Political Economy, 103(6), 1121–1157.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Attanasio, OP, Banks, J, Meghir, C, Weber, G. (1999). Humps and bumps in lifetime consumption. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 17(1), 22–35.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ayong Le Kama, A, Fodha, M, Lafforgue, G. (2013). Optimal carbon capture and storage policies. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 18(4), 417–426.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blundell, R, Browning, M, Meghir, C. (1994). Consumer demand and the life-cycle allocation of household expenditures. The Review of Economic Studies, 61(1), 57–80.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bovenberg, AL, & Smulders, S. (1995). Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model. Journal of Public Economics, 57(3), 369–391.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bovenberg, AL, & Smulders, S. (1996). Transitional impacts of environmental policy in an endogenous growth model. International Economic Review, 37(4), 861–893.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bowen, A, & Hepburn, C. (2014). Green growth: an assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(3), 407–422.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brock, WA, & Taylor, MS. (2010). The green Solow model. Journal of Economic Growth, 15(2), 127–153.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chakravorty, U, Magné, B, Moreaux, M. (2006). A Hotelling model with a ceiling on the stock of pollution. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30(12), 2875–2904.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chakravorty, U, Moreaux, M, Tidball, M. (2008). Ordering the extraction of polluting nonrenewable resources. American Economic Review, 98(3), 1128–1144.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    DESA. (2007). Industrial development for the 21st century: sustainable development perspectives. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dinda, S. (2005). A theoretical basis for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 53(3), 403–413.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Engelhardt, GV, & Kumar, A. (2009). The elasticity of intertemporal substitution: new evidence from 401(k) participation. Economics Letters, 103(1), 15–17.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fried, S. (2018). Climate policy and innovation: a quantitative macroeconomic analysis. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 10(1), 90–118.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gerlagh, R, Kverndokk, S, Rosendahl, KE. (2014). The optimal time path of clean energy R&D policy when patents have finite lifetime. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(1), 2–19.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Golosov, M, Hassler, J, Krusell, P, Tsyvinski, A. (2014). Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica, 82(1), 41–88.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goulder, LH, & Mathai, K. (2000). Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39, 1–38.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greaker, M, Heggedal, TR, Rosendahl, KE. (2018). Environmental policy and the direction of technical change. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1100–1138.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grimaud, A, Lafforgue, G, Magne, B. (2011). Climate change mitigation options and directed technical change: a decentralized equilibrium analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(4), 938–962.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grossman, GM, & Helpman, E. (1993). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grossman, GM, & Krueger, AB. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper Series Working Paper.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grossman, GM, & Krueger, AB. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Groth, C. (2007). A new-growth perspective on non-renewable resources. In Bretschger, L, & Smulders, S (Eds.) Sustainable resource use and economic dynamics (Chap. 7, pp. 127–163). Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hassler, J, Krusell, P, Olovsson, C. (2012). Energy-saving technical change. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heutel, G, & Fischer, C. (2013). Environmental macroeconomics: Environmental policy, business cycles, and directed technical change. NBER Working Paper Series Working Paper.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoel, M, & Kverndokk, S. (1996). Depletion of fossil fuels and the impacts of global warming. Resource and Energy Economics, 18(2), 115–136.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    IEA. (2015). World Energy Outlook 2015. Tech. rep., International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jones, CI. (1999). Growth: with or without scale effects? American Economic Review, 89(2), 139–144.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jones, CI. (2016). The facts of economic growth. In Handbook of macroeconomics (Vol. 2, pp. 3–69). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kollenbach, G. (2015). Abatement, R&D and growth with a pollution ceiling. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 54, 1–16.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Krautkraemer, JA. (2005). Economics of natural resource scarcity: the state of the debate. In RD Simpson, MA Toman, RU Ayres (Eds.) , Scarcity and growth revisited: natural resources and the environment in the new millennium, resources for the future.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lennox, JA, & Witajewski-Baltvilks, J. (2017). Directed technical change with capital-embodied technologies: implications for climate policy. Energy Economics, 67, 400–409.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lieb, CM. (2004). The environmental Kuznets curve and flow versus stock pollution: the neglect of future damages. Environmental and Resource Economics, 29(4), 483– 506.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mattauch, L, Creutzig, F, Edenhofer, O. (2015). Avoiding carbon lock-in: policy options for advancing structural change. Economic Modelling, 50, 49–63.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Moreaux, M, & Withagen, C. (2015). Optimal abatement of carbon emission flows. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 74, 55–70.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Naito, T, & Ohdoi, R. (2008). Dynamics of a two-sector endogenous growth model with intersectoral knowledge spillovers. Economic Theory, 35(3), 599–605.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Newell, R, Jaffe, AB, Stavins, RN. (1999). The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 941–975.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nordhaus, WD. (1973). The allocation of energy resources. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 4(3), 529–576.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nordhaus, WD. (2002). Modeling induced innovation in climate-change policy. Technological Change and the Environment, 9, 259–290.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    OECD. (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Van der Ploeg, F, & Withagen, C. (2012). Is there really a Green Paradox? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 64(3), 342–363.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Popp, D. (2002). Induced innovation and energy prices. American Economic Review, 92, 160–180.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Popp, D. (2004). Entice: Endogenous technological change in the dice model of global warming. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48(1), 742–768.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Popp, D. (2006). Entice-br: the effects of backstop technology R&D on climate policy models. Energy Economics, 28(2), 188– 222.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Porter, ME, & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Romer, PM. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71—S102.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rouge, L. (2019). Environmental policy instruments and the long-run management of a growing stock of pollutant. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 24(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Scholz, JK, Seshadri, A, Khitatrakun, S. (2006). Are Americans saving optimally for retirement? Journal of Political Economy, 114(4), 607–643.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smulders, S, & De Nooij, M. (2003). The impact of energy conservation on technology and economic growth. Resource and Energy Economics, 25(1), 59–79.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Smulders, S, Bretschger, L, Egli, H. (2011). Economic growth and the diffusion of clean technologies: explaining environmental Kuznets curves. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(1), 79–99.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Smulders, S, Toman, M, Withagen, C. (2014). Growth theory and green growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(3), 423–446.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Solow, RM. (2005). Reflections on growth theory. Handbook of Economic Growth, 1, 3–10.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1–37.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Stokey, NL. (1998). Are there limits to growth? International Economic Review, 39(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tahvonen, O. (1997). Fossil fuels, stock externalities, and backstop technology. Canadian Journal of Economics, 30(4a), 855–874.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tsur, Y, & Zemel, A. (2011). On the dynamics of competing energy sources. Automatica, 47(7), 1357–1365.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Van Der Ploeg, F, & Withagen, C. (1991). Pollution control and the Ramsey problem. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1(2), 215–236.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    World Bank Group. (2010). World development indicators 2014. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Toulouse School of EconomicsToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsYildiz Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations