Modeling endogenous learning and imperfect competition effects in climate change economics

  • Laurent ViguierEmail author
  • Leonardo Barreto
  • Alain Haurie
  • Socrates Kypreos
  • Peter Rafaj


In this two-part paper we evaluate the effect of “endogenizing” technological learning and strategic behavior of agents in economic models used to assess climate change policies. In the first part we show the potential impact of R&D policies or demonstration and deployment (D&D) programs in the context of stringent stabilization scenarios. In the second part we show how game-theoretic methods can be implemented in climate change economic models to take into account three types of strategic interactions: (i) the market power of the countries benefiting from very low abatement costs on international markets for CO2 emissions, (ii) the strategic behavior of governments in the domestic allocation of CO2 emissions quotas, and (iii) the non-cooperative behavior of countries and regions in the burden sharing of CO2 concentration stabilization. The two topics of endogenous learning and game-theoretic approach to economic modeling are two manifestations of the need to take into account the strategic behavior of agents in the evaluation of climate change policies. In the first case an R&D policy or a demonstration and deployment (D&D) program are put in place in order to attain a cost reduction through the learning effect; in the second case the agents (countries) reply optimally to the actions decided by the other agents by exploiting their strategic advantages. Simulations based on integrated assessment models illustrate the approaches. These studies have been conducted under the Swiss NCCR-Climate program.


Endogenous technological learning Strategic behavior Climate policy Emissions trading Economic models Dynamic games 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aumann RJ (1974) Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics 1:67–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babiker M, Criqui P, Ellerman D, Reilly J, Viguier L (2003) Assessing the impact of carbon tax differentiation in the European Union. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 8(3):187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babiker M, Reilly J, Viguier L (2004) Is international emission trading always beneficial? The Energy Journal 25(2):33–56Google Scholar
  4. Başar T, Olsder G (1989) Dynamic noncooperative game theory. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahn O, Kypreos S (2002) MERGE-ETL: An optimisation equilibrium model with two different endogenous technological learning formulations. PSI Report 02-16, Paul Scherrer Institute, VilligenGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreto L (2001) Technological learning in energy optimisation models and the deployment of emerging technologies. Thesis no. 14151, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ)Google Scholar
  7. Barreto L, Kypreos S (2004a) Emissions trading and technology deployment in an energy-systems “Bottom-Up” model with technology learning. European Journal of Operational Research 158:243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barreto L, Kypreos S (2004b) Extensions to the Energy-System GMM Model for SAPIENTIA. Report to the EC-sponsored SAPIENTIA Project ENK6-CT-2002-00614, Paul Scherrer Institute, Energy Economics Group, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Barrett S (1997) The strategy of trade sanctions in international environmental agreements. Resource and Energy Economics 19:345–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrett S (1999) A theory of full international cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Politics 11(4):519–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernard A, Haurie A, Vielle M, Viguier L (2005) A two-level dynamic game of carbon emissions trading between Russia, China, and Annex B Countries. Journal of Economic Dynamic & Control. Preliminary Accepted for PublicationGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernard A, Paltsev S, Reilly J, Vielle M, Viguier L (2003) Russia’s role in the Kyoto Protocol. Report 98, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernard A, Vielle M (1998) La structure du modèle GEMINI-E3. Economie & Prévision 5(136)Google Scholar
  14. Bernard A, Vielle M (2003) Measuring the welfare cost of climate change policies: A comparative assessment based on the computable general equilibrium model GEMINI-E3. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 8(3):199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchner B, Carraro C, Cersosimo I, Marchiori C (2005) Back to Kyoto? US participation and the linkage between R&D and climate cooperation. In: Haurie A, Viguier L (eds) Cloupling climate and economic dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Chapt. 5Google Scholar
  16. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1996) R&D cooperation and the stability of international environmental agreements, In: Carraro C (ed) International environmental negotiations. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  17. Ciscar J, Soria A (2004) Kyoto and beyond Kyoto climate policy: comparison of open-loop and feedback game outcomes. In: Carraro C, Fragnelli V (eds) Game practice and the environment. Cheltenham, UK-Northampton, MA: Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  18. Criqui P (1996) POLES 2.2, Technical Report, JOULE II Programme, European Commission DG XVII-Science Research Development, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  19. Criqui P, Viguier L (2000) Kyoto and technology at world level: Costs of CO2 reduction under flexibility mechanisms and technical progress. International Journal of Global Energy Issues 14:155–168Google Scholar
  20. Dockner E, Jorgensen S, Long N, Sorger G (2000) Differential games in economics and management sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. EC (2002) Communication from the commission on impact assessment. Technical Report COM(2002) 276 Final, European Commission, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  22. Fishbone L, Abilock H (1981) MARKAL, a linear programming model for energy systems analysis: technical description of the BNL version. International Journal of Energy Research 5:353–375Google Scholar
  23. Forgo F, Fulop J, Prill M (2005) Game theoretic models for climate change negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research 160:252–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Germain M, Toint P, Tulkens H, de Zeew A (1998) Transfers to sustain core-theoretic cooperation in international stock pollutant control. Discussion Paper 9832, COREGoogle Scholar
  25. Goulder L, Mathai K (2000) Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hahn R (1984) Market power and transferable property rights. Quarterly Journal of Economics 99(4):753–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haurie A, Moresino F, Vielle M, Viguier L (2005a) A coupled equilibrium model of international climate policy. MimeoGoogle Scholar
  28. Haurie A, Moresino F, Viguier L (2005b) A two-level differential game of international emissions trading. Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games. To appearGoogle Scholar
  29. Haurie A, Viguier L (2003) A stochastic dynamic game of carbon emissions trading. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IEA (2002) Beyond Kyoto. Energy dynamics and climate stabilisation. Paris, France: International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  31. Kemfert C (2005) Climate policy cooperation games between developed and developing nations: a quantitative, applied analysis. In: Haurie A, Viguier L (eds) Cloupling climate and economic dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Chapt. 5Google Scholar
  32. Kouvaritakis N, Soria A, Isoard S (2000) Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. Int. J. of Global Energy Issues 14(1/2/3/4):104–115Google Scholar
  33. Kypreos S (2000) The MERGE model with endogenous technological change. In: Proceedings of the economic modeling of environmental policy and endogenous technological change workshop. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 16–17Google Scholar
  34. Kypreos S (2005) Modeling experience curves in MERGE. Energy 30(14):2721–2737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kypreos S, Bahn O (2002) A MERGE model with endogenous technological change. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loulou R, Lavigne D (1996) MARKAL model with elastic demands: application to GHG emission control, In: Carraro C, Haurie A (eds) Operations research and environmental management. Vol. 5 of The FEEM/KLUWER International series on economics, energy and environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 201–220Google Scholar
  37. Manne A, Barreto L (2004) Learn-by-doing and carbon dioxide abatement. Energy Economics 26:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manne A, Richels R (2001) An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases. Nature 401:675–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manne A, Richels R (2002) The impact of learning-by-doing on the timing and costs of CO2 abatement. In: International Energy Workshop. Stanford, USA, pp. 18–20Google Scholar
  40. Messner S (1997) Endogenised technological learning in an energy systems model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 7:291–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Philibert C, Pershing J (2001) Considering the options: Climate targets for all countries. Climate Policy 1:211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rafaj P, Kypreos S, Barreto L (2005) Flexible carbon mitigation policies: analysis with a global multi-regional MARKAL model. In: Haurie A Viguier L (eds) Cloupling climate and economic dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Chapt. 5Google Scholar
  43. Rosen JB (1965) Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave N-person games. Econometrica 33(3):520–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stavins R (1995) Transaction costs and tradable permits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29:133–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Viguier L, Vielle M, Haurie A, Bernard A (2006) A two-level computable equilibrium model to assess the strategic allocation of emission allowances within the european union. Computers & Operations Research 33(2):369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Viguier
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Leonardo Barreto
    • 3
  • Alain Haurie
    • 4
  • Socrates Kypreos
    • 3
  • Peter Rafaj
    • 5
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)Switzerland
  2. 2.MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Paul Scherrer InstituteVilligenSwitzerland
  4. 4.HEC-GenevaSwitzerland
  5. 5.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations