Abstract
Since Heal (Explorations in natural resource economics. The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore, 1982), there is a theoretical consensus about the occurrence of limit cycles (through a Hopf bifurcation) under a positive effect of pollution on consumption demand (compensation effect) and about the impossibility under a negative effect (distaste effect). However, recent empirical evidence advocates for the relevance of distaste effects. Our paper challenges the conventional view on the theoretical ground and reconciles theory and evidence. The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) (pollution first increases in the capital level then decreases) plays the main role. Indeed, the standard case à la Heal (limit cycles only under a compensation effect) only works along the upward-sloping branch of the curve while the opposite (limit cycles only under a distaste effect) holds along the downward-sloping branch. Welfare effects of taxation also change according to the slope of the EKC.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The reader is referred to a brief survey on the pollution effects on human health by Kampa and Castanas (2008).
The reader is referred to a survey on the EKC compiled by Kijima et al. (2010).
Usually, the EKC defines “an inverted-U-shaped relationship between different pollutants and per capita income” (Dinda 2004), that is an inverted-U-shaped relationship between P and \(y\equiv Y/L=f\left( k\right) \). We observe that, since \(f^{\prime }\left( k\right) >0\) (see Assumption 1), an inverted-U-shaped relationship between P and y is analogous to an inverted-U-shaped relationship between P and k.
In our model, both the cases of stability or instability of the limit cycle with Kuznets effect, are possible. According to different calibrations, we obtain either super or subcritical bifurcations.
In this and the following sections, all the values are evaluated at the steady state. For notational parsimony, we will omit the asterisk \(*\) for functions and elasticities evaluated at the steady state.
See Vissing-Jørgensen (2002) among others.
The interest reader is referred to Bennett and Farmer (2000) among others.
In the case of the Netherlands, according to the OECD Environmental Performance Reviews (2015), public environmental protection expenditures represent 1.5% of GDP in 2013.
Matcont version 6p4.
We observe that subcriticity depends on the calibration. A different parametrization may give rise to supercriticity in the EKC case.
References
Andreoni J, Levinson A (2001) The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ 80:269–286
Bennett R, Farmer R (2000) Indeterminacy with non-separable utility. J Econ Theory 93:118–143
Bosi S, Ragot L (2011) Introduction to discrete-time dynamics. CLUEB, Bologna
Bosi S, Desmarchelier D, Ragot L (2016) Preferences and pollution cycles. FAERE working paper, 2016.03
Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49:431–455
Fernandez E, Pérez R, Ruiz J (2012) The environmental Kuznets curve and equilibrium indeterminacy. J Econ Dyn Control 36:1700–1717
Finkelstein A, Luttmer E, Notowidigdo M (2013) What good is wealth without health? The effect of health on the marginal utility of consumption. J Eur Econ Assoc 11:221–258
Heal G (1982) The use of common property resources. In: Smith VK, Krutilla JV (eds) Explorations in natural resource economics. The Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore
Itaya J-I (2008) Can environmental taxation stimulate growth? The role of indeterminacy in endogenous growth models with environmental externalities. J Econ Dyn Control 32:1156–1180
Kampa M, Castanas E (2008) Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut 151:362–367
Kijima M, Nishide K, Ohyama A (2010) Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: a survey. J Econ Dyn Control 34:1187–1201
Kuznetsov Y (1998) Elements of applied bifurcation theory. Applied mathematical sciences, vol 112. Springer, New York
Managi S (2006) Are there increasing returns to pollution abatement? Empirical analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve in pesticides. Ecol Econ 58:617–636
Managi S, Kaneko S (2009) Environmental performance and returns to pollution abatement in China. Ecol Econ 68:1643–1651
Mélières M-A, Maréchal C (2015) Climate change: past, present and futur. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken
Michel P, Rotillon G (1995) Disutility of pollution and endogenous growth. Environ Resour Econ 6:279–300
OECD (2015) OECD environmental performance reviews: the Netherlands 2015. OECD Publishing
Sinn H-W (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Public Finance 15:360–394
Vissing-Jørgensen A (2002) Limited asset market participation and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution. J Polit Econ 110:825–853
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Proof of Proposition 1
The consumer’s Hamiltonian function writes
The first-order conditions are given by \(\partial \tilde{H}/\partial \tilde{\lambda }=\left( r-\delta \right) h+w-c=\dot{h}\), \(\partial \tilde{H}/\partial h=\tilde{\lambda }\left( r-\delta \right) =-\tilde{\lambda }^{\prime }\), \(\partial \tilde{H}/\partial c=e^{-\rho t}u_{c}-\tilde{\lambda } =0\). Setting \(\lambda \equiv e^{\rho t}\tilde{\lambda }\), we find \(\dot{\lambda }-\rho \lambda =e^{\rho t}\tilde{\lambda }^{\prime }\) and, therefore, \(\lambda \left( r-\delta -\rho \right) =-\dot{\lambda }\). Finally, the budget constraint \(\dot{h}=\left( r-\delta \right) h+w-c\), now binding, writes at equilibrium \(\dot{k}=\left( r-\delta \right) k+w-c\). \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 3
Focus on Eq. (12). \(\dot{P}=0\) implies
with
Under Assumption 3.1, if \(k^{*}<\tilde{k}\) then \(P^{\prime }\left( k\right) >0\) while if \(k^{*}>\tilde{k}\) then \(P^{\prime }\left( k^{*}\right) <0\). \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 4
At the steady state, \(\dot{\lambda }=\dot{k}=\dot{P}=0\). Equation (10) gives (15).
Assumption 1 implies that there exists a unique \(k^{*}>0\) verifying (15). Replacing this value into Eq. (12) gives \(P^{*}=\left[ bk^{*}-\gamma \left( \tau k^{*}\right) \tau k^{*}\right] /a\). Since \(b>\gamma \left( m^{*}\right) \tau \), there exists a unique \(P^{*}>0\). Replacing \(\left( k^{*},P^{*}\right) \) into Eq. (11), we obtain:
Equation (6) becomes
\(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 6
Let
be the welfare function evaluated at the steady state. We find
Using (17) and (18), we obtain
\(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 7
Necessity In a three-dimensional dynamic system, we require at the bifurcation value: \(\lambda _{1}=ib=-\lambda _{2}\) with no generic restriction on \(\lambda _{3}\) (see Bosi and Ragot 2011 or Kuznetsov 1998 among others). The characteristic polynomial of J is given by: \(P\left( \lambda \right) =\left( \lambda -\lambda _{1}\right) \left( \lambda -\lambda _{2}\right) \left( \lambda -\lambda _{3}\right) =\lambda ^{3} -T\lambda ^{2}+S\lambda -D\). Using \(\lambda _{1}=ib=-\lambda _{2}\), we find \(D=b^{2}\lambda _{3}\), \(S=b^{2}\), \(T=\lambda _{3}\). Thus, \(D=ST\) and \(S>0\).
Sufficiency In the case of a three-dimensional system, one eigenvalue is always real, the others two are either real or nonreal and conjugated. Let us show that, if \(D=ST\) and \(S>0\), these eigenvalues are nonreal with zero real part and, hence, a Hopf bifurcation generically occurs.
We observe that \(D=ST\) implies
or, equivalently,
This equation holds if and only if \(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}=0\) or \(\lambda _{3}^{2}+\left( \lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}\right) \lambda _{3} +\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}=0\). Solving this second-degree equation for \(\lambda _{3}\), we find \(\lambda _{3}=-\lambda _{1}\) or \(-\lambda _{2}\). Thus, (37) holds if and only if \(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}=0\) or \(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{3}=0\) or \(\lambda _{2}+\lambda _{3}=0\). Without loss of generality, let \(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}=0\) with, generically, \(\lambda _{3}\ne 0\) a real eigenvalue. Since \(S>0\), we have also \(\lambda _{1}=-\lambda _{2}\ne 0\). We obtain \(T=\lambda _{3}\ne 0\) and \(S=D/T=\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}=-\lambda _{1}^{2}>0\). This is possible only if \(\lambda _{1}\) is nonreal. If \(\lambda _{1}\) is nonreal, \(\lambda _{2}\) is conjugated, and, since \(\lambda _{1}=-\lambda _{2}\), they have a zero real part. \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 8
Necessity In the real case, we obtain \(D=\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}\lambda _{3}<0\), \(S=\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}+\lambda _{1}\lambda _{3} +\lambda _{2}\lambda _{3}>0\) and \(T=\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}+\lambda _{3}<0\).
Sufficiency We want to prove that, if \(D,T<0\) and \(S>0\), then \(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},\lambda _{3}<0\). Notice that \(D<0\) implies \(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},\lambda _{3}\ne 0\).
\(D<0\) implies that at least one eigenvalue is negative. Let, without loss of generality, \(\lambda _{3}<0\). Since \(\lambda _{3}<0\) and \(D=\lambda _{1} \lambda _{2}\lambda _{3}<0\), we have \(\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}>0\). Thus, there are two subcases: (1) \(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2}<0\), (2) \(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2} >0\). If \(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2}>0\), \(T<0\) implies \(\lambda _{3}<-\left( \lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}\right) \) and, hence,
a contradiction. Then, \(\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2}<0\). \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bosi, S., Desmarchelier, D. Limit Cycles Under a Negative Effect of Pollution on Consumption Demand: The Role of an Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environ Resource Econ 69, 343–363 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0082-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0082-7