Differential-algebraic equations of the multicriteria locally optimal trajectory of economic restructuring

Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

This paper introduces a system of differential-algebraic equations with non-negativity constraints that determines a locally optimal trajectory of economic restructuring. It aims to provide the maximum economic growth constrained by the steepest possible decrease in energy consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions. The input–output models (conventional, energy-related, and greenhouse gas emissions related) and factorial models of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are used as a basis. The goal is achieved by changing the structure of the gross output in the direction of the tangent line to the optimal trajectory. This trajectory may serve as a benchmark for the assessment of the actual structural change resulting from the interplay of market forces and government intervention or as a roadmap for economic development programs. The local optimization property makes the suggested trajectory attractive in situations when the best short-term performance prevails, while the long-term objectives should be taken into account as well.

Keywords

Multicriteria optimal economic restructuring Locally optimal economic dynamics System of differential-algebraic equations Non-negativity constraints Environmental protection 

References

  1. 1.
    Ilchmann A, Reis T (eds) (2013) Surveys in differential-algebraic equations I. Series: differential-algebraic equations forum. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ilchmann A, Reis T (eds) (2015a) Surveys in differential-algebraic equations II. Series: differential-algebraic equations forum. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilchmann A, Reis T (eds) (2015b) Surveys in differential-algebraic equations III. Series: differential-algebraic equations forum. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ilchmann A, Reis T (eds) (2017) Surveys in differential-algebraic equations IV. Series: differential-algebraic equations forum. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu W, Li B, Fu C, Chen B (2015) Dynamics of a predator-prey ecological system with nonlinear harvesting rate. Wuhan Univ J Nat Sci 20(1):25–33MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Santra P, Mahapatra G, Pal D (2016) Analysis of differential-algebraic prey-predator dynamical model with super predator harvesting on economic perspective. Int J Dyn Control 4(3):266–274MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang Y, Jiang W (2017) Bifurcations in a delayed differential-algebraic plankton economic system. J Appl Anal Comput 7(4):1431–1447MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cánovas JS, Muñoz-Guillermo M (2017) On the complexity of economic dynamics: an approach through topological entropy. Chaos Solitons Fractals 103:163–176MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eriksson R, Hansen H, Winther L (2017) Employment growth and regional development: industrial change and contextual differences between Denmark and Sweden. Eur Plan Stud 25(10):1756–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gogoleva T, Golikova G, Kanapukhin P (2018) Economic analysis of investments as a source of economic changes. Stud Syst Decis Control 135:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sayapova AR (2017) Input–output coefficients in the evaluation of a scientific and technological component of the macrostructural forecasting. Stud Russ Econ Dev 28(6):585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Annicchiarico B, Di Dio F (2015) Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model. J Environ Econ Manag 69(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu Q, Lei Q, Xu H, Yuan J (2018) China’s energy revolution strategy into 2030. Resour Conserv Recycl 128:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schnabl G (2017) Monetary policy and overinvestment in East Asia and Europe. Asia Eur J 15(4):445–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tu S, Long H (2017) Rural restructuring in China: theory, approaches and research prospect. J Geogr Sci 27(10):1169–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang Y, Shao T, Dong Q (2018) Reassessing the lewis turning point in China: evidence from 70,000 rural households. China World Econ 26(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vaninsky A (2017) Optimal environment-friendly economic restructuring: the United States-China cooperation case study. Econ Change Restruct (in print)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leontief W (1986) Input–output economics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leontief W (1941) The structure of the American economy, 1919–1939: an empirical application of equilibrium analysis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller R, Blair P (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Timmer M, Dietzenbacher E, Los B, de Stehrer R, Vries G (2015) An illustrated user guide to the world input–output database: the case of global automotive production. Rev Int Econ 23:575–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maital S, Vaninsky A (1999) Data envelopment analysis with a single DMU: a graphic projected-gradient approach. Eur J Oper Res 115(3):518–528CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meerovich V (1974) Turnover of financial funds and efficiency of production (Oborot Sredstv i Effektivnost’ Proizvodstva). Financy, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vaninsky A (1983) An extension of the integral method of economic analysis to the analysis of interrelated and derivative factors. Avtomatika i Telemekhanika, 8:130–141. http://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=at&paperid=5200&option_lang=eng (in Russian). English translation is available in Automation and Remote Control 44, 8(2):1074–1083 (1984)
  25. 25.
    Vaninsky A (1987) Factorial analysis of economic activity (Factornyi Analiz Khozyaistvennoi Deyatel’nosti), Moskva, Financy i Statistika (in Russian)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vaninsky A (2014) Optimal economic restructuring aimed at an increase in GDP constrained by a decrease in energy consumption and CO2 emissions. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. International Science Index 90. Int J Math Comput Phys Electr Comput Eng 8(6):882–888. https://waset.org/Publications?q=vaninsky&search=Search
  27. 27.
    Vaninsky A, Meerovich V (1978) Problems of the methodology of analysis of the impact of structural change on the indicators of production efficiency, (Voprosy metodologii analiza vliyaniya strukturnykh sdvigov na pokazateli effectivnosti proizvodstva). In: Proceedings of the national scientific conference “economic leverages of the efficiency of using material, Labor, Finance, and natural resources”, vol 2, pp 105–107, Central Economic-Mathematical Institute, Moskva (in Russian)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghosh A (1964) Experiments with input–output models. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vaninsky A (2006) Computational method of finding optimal structural change in economic systems: an input-output projected-gradient approach. J Interdiscip Math 9(1):61–76MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vaninsky A (2009) Structural change optimization in input–output models. J Interdiscip Math 12(6):839–861MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maital S, Vaninsky A (2000) Productivity paradoxes and their resolution. J Prod Anal 14(3):191–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaya Y (1990) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC energy and industry subgroup, response strategies working group, Paris (mimeo)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thompson B (2004) Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaplan W (1993) Advanced calculus, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grana Drummond L, Iusem A (2004) A projected gradient method for vector optimization problems. Comput Optim Appl 28:5–29MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Metivier L, Montarnal P (2012) Strategies for solving index one DAE with non-negative constraints: application to liquid–liquid extraction. J Comput Phys Elsevier 231(7):2945–2962. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00763691/document

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics Department, Hostos Community CollegeCity University of New YorkBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations