IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfr/banfra/959.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing Integrated Assessment Models for Building Global Nature-Economy Scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Mathilde Salin
  • Katie Kedward
  • Nepomuk Dunz

Abstract

This chapter reviews the empirical evidence on price stickiness in the euro area. We provide an overview of the different sources of granular consumer and producer price data now available in the euro area. We document new stylized facts on price adjustment in the euro area over the last 20 years. We first present results on the frequency and size of price adjustment in the cross-section dimension. Then we describe some results on the evolution of price stickiness over time. We also derive some implications for the micro-foundations of macro models, discussing the consistency of available evidence with predictions of state- and time-dependent modelPolicymakers are increasingly calling for the development of scenarios to explore the economic consequences of nature loss and transition policies, particularly at a global scale and macroeconomic level. In this paper, we review global integrated-assessment models (IAMs) linking nature and the macroeconomy and assess their suitability to help build such scenarios. We perform an in-depth analysis of both ‘stylised’ and ‘applied’ IAMs, and critically assess how they represent dependencies of the macroeconomy on nature, as well as policies to reverse nature loss. We find that applied IAMs are generally skewed to capturing the dependency of the economy to selected provisioning ecosystem services, with regulating and maintenance services less represented. As these models tend to focus on the land-use and climate drivers of biodiversity loss, the transition policies they capture only aim to mitigate those drivers and overlook other drivers of nature loss such as pollution or invasive alien species. We also find that some theoretical assumptions in the core macroeconomic part of applied models may tend to mitigate the potential macroeconomic consequences of nature loss and nature transition policies. This contrasts with the results of the ‘stylised’ models we review, which tend to represent the loss of natural capital and biodiversity as having significant impacts on the macroeconomy. However, stylised models make it hard to represent the impact of the loss of specific ecosystem services or specific policies to protect nature. Building on this analysis, we explore the challenges and identify future avenues for the use of IAMs in scenarios that account for the importance of nature and biodiversity for economic activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathilde Salin & Katie Kedward & Nepomuk Dunz, 2024. "Assessing Integrated Assessment Models for Building Global Nature-Economy Scenarios," Working papers 959, Banque de France.
  • Handle: RePEc:bfr:banfra:959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.banque-france.fr/system/files/2024-08/WP959_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quentin Couix, 2021. "Models as ‘analytical similes’: on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 165-185, April.
    2. Brooks, Wesley R. & Newbold, Stephen C., 2014. "An updated biodiversity nonuse value function for use in climate change integrated assessment models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 342-349.
    3. Muradian, Roldan & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Beyond ecosystem services and nature's contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Hackett, Stian B. & Moxnes, Erling, 2015. "Natural capital in integrated assessment models of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 354-361.
    5. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    6. Julien CALAS & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN (AFD) & and Etienne ESPAGNE (World Bank), 2022. "Global biodiversity scenarios: what do they tell us for biodiversity-related socioeconomic impacts?," Working Paper 1a39419b-ef1d-4b82-a7be-d, Agence française de développement.
    7. Lanz, Bruno & Dietz, Simon & Swanson, Tim, 2018. "The Expansion of Modern Agriculture and Global Biodiversity Decline: An Integrated Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 260-277.
    8. Moritz A. Drupp, 2018. "Limits to Substitution Between Ecosystem Services and Manufactured Goods and Implications for Social Discounting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(1), pages 135-158, January.
    9. Julien CALAS & Etienne ESPAGNE & Antoine GODIN & Julie MAURIN, 2022. "Global biodiversity scenarios: what do they tell us for Biodiversity-Related Financial Risks?," Working Paper a562217f-0f0e-4965-beb8-5, Agence française de développement.
    10. Moritz A. Drupp & Martin C. Hänsel, 2021. "Relative Prices and Climate Policy: How the Scarcity of Nonmarket Goods Drives Policy Evaluation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 168-201, February.
    11. Naso, Pedro & Haznedar, Ozgun & Lanz, Bruno & Swanson, Tim, 2022. "A macroeconomic approach to global land use policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    12. Robert S. Pindyck, 2013. "Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(3), pages 860-872, September.
    13. Spangenberg, Joachim H., 2007. "Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 146-158, February.
    14. Bernardo A. Bastien-Olvera & Frances C. Moore, 2021. "Use and non-use value of nature and the social cost of carbon," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(2), pages 101-108, February.
    15. Herman E. Daly, 1991. "Towards an Environmental Macroeconomics," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 255-259.
    16. Joseph Stiglitz, 1974. "Growth with Exhaustible Natural Resources: Efficient and Optimal Growth Paths," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 123-137.
    17. Jahel, Camille & Bourgeois, Robin & Bourgoin, Jérémy & Daré, William's & De Lattre-Gasquet, Marie & Delay, Etienne & Dumas, Patrice & Le Page, Christophe & Piraux, Marc & Prudhomme, Rémi, 2023. "The future of social-ecological systems at the crossroads of quantitative and qualitative methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Timothy Lenton & Juan-Carlos Ciscar, 2013. "Integrating tipping points into climate impact assessments," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 585-597, April.
    19. Partha Dasgupta & Geoffrey Heal, 1974. "The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 3-28.
    20. Onil Banerjee & Martin Cicowiez & Marcia Macedo & Žiga Malek & Peter Verburg & Sean Goodwin & Renato Vargas & Ludmila Rattis & Paulo M. Brando & Michael T. Coe & Christopher Neill & Octavio Damiani, 2020. "An Amazon Tipping Point: The Economic and Environmental Fallout," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0292, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    21. Banerjee, Onil & Crossman, Neville & Vargas, Renato & Brander, Luke & Verburg, Peter & Cicowiez, Martin & Hauck, Jennifer & McKenzie, Emily, 2020. "Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    22. Ben Groom & Zachary Turk, 2021. "Reflections on the Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 1-23, May.
    23. Hartwick, John M., 1978. "Investing returns from depleting renewable resource stocks and intergenerational equity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-88.
    24. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1975. "Dynamic models and economic growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 3(11-12), pages 765-783.
    25. Haruka Ohashi & Tomoko Hasegawa & Akiko Hirata & Shinichiro Fujimori & Kiyoshi Takahashi & Ikutaro Tsuyama & Katsuhiro Nakao & Yuji Kominami & Nobuyuki Tanaka & Yasuaki Hijioka & Tetsuya Matsui, 2019. "Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    26. Kevin R. Kaushal & Ståle Navrud, 2023. "Accounting for Biodiversity Costs from Climate Change in Integrated Assessment Models," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 16(3-4), pages 467-504, January.
    27. Carbone, Jared C. & Kerry Smith, V., 2013. "Valuing nature in a general equilibrium," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 72-89.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucas Bretschger & Karen Pittel, 2020. "Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 725-750, December.
    2. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    3. Koji Tokimatsu & Louis Dupuy & Nick Hanley, 2019. "Using Genuine Savings for Climate Policy Evaluation with an Integrated Assessment Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 281-307, January.
    4. Nick Hanley & Louis Dupuy & Eoin McLaughlin, 2015. "Genuine Savings And Sustainability," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 779-806, September.
    5. Fangzhi Wang & Hua Liao & Richard S.J. Tol & Changjing, "undated". "Endogenous preference for non-market goods in carbon abatement decision," Working Paper Series 0224, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Mircea Saveanu, 2014. "Sustainability as a Resource Distribution Constraint," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 10(2), pages 139-151, April.
    7. Jonas Heckenhahn & Moritz A. Drupp, 2024. "Relative Price Changes of Ecosystem Services: Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(3), pages 833-880, March.
    8. Asheim, Geir B. & Hartwick, John M. & Mitra, Tapan, 2021. "Investment rules and time invariance under population growth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    9. Moritz A. Drupp & Jasper N. Meya & Björn Bos & Simon Disque, 2024. "Heterogeneous Substitutability Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 11197, CESifo.
    10. Lucas Bretschger & Karen Pittel, 2019. "Twenty Key Questions in Environmental and Resource Economics," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 19/328, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    11. Adrian Boos, 2015. "Genuine Savings as an Indicator for “Weak” Sustainability: Critical Survey and Possible Ways forward in Practical Measuring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-37, April.
    12. Asheim, Geir B. & Hartwick, John M. & Yamaguchi, Rintaro, 2023. "Sustainable per capita consumption under population growth," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    13. Andre, Francisco J. & Cerda, Emilio, 2005. "On natural resource substitution," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 233-246, December.
    14. Maureen L. Cropper & Yongjoon Park, 2024. "Incorporating Air and Water Pollution into the National Income and Product Accounts," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Environmental Public Goods: A National Accounts Perspective, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2023. "Global evidence on the income elasticity of willingness to pay, relative price changes and public natural capital values," Papers 2308.04400, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    16. Lucas Bretschger & Aimilia Pattakou, 2019. "As Bad as it Gets: How Climate Damage Functions Affect Growth and the Social Cost of Carbon," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 5-26, January.
    17. Cees A. Withagen, 2018. "The Social Cost of Carbon and the Ramsey Rule," CESifo Working Paper Series 7359, CESifo.
    18. Quaas, Martin F. & Bröcker, Johannes, 2016. "Substitutability and the social cost of carbon in a solvable growth model with irreversible climate change," Economics Working Papers 2016-09, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    19. Burda, Michael C. & Zessner-Spitzenberg, Leopold, 2024. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Price-Driven Growth in a Solow-Swan Economy with an Environmental Limit," IZA Discussion Papers 16771, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Integrated Assessment Modelling; Biodiversity; Natural Capital; Nature Scenarios; Macroeconomic Impacts; Sustainable Development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • O11 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O44 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Environment and Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bfr:banfra:959. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael brassart (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bdfgvfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.