IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/448.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Climate Policy in Small, Open Economies

Author

Listed:

Abstract

According to environmental interests groups governments should use their climate policy strategically in order to provide for a faster introduction of new, cleaner technologies. Strategic use of climate policy could also induce the development of a successful upstream abatement technology industry like the Danish windmill industry. Interestingly, this latter question has not been analyzed theoretically before. Our point of departure is a three-stage game between a government in a small country with a climate restriction, and a limited number of firms supplying carbon abatement technology. The government moves first, and may use its climate policy strategically to influence the behavior of the upstream technology firms. An especially stringent climate policy towards the polluting downstream sector may then in fact be well founded. It will increase the competition between the technology suppliers, and lead to lower domestic abatement costs. However, to our surprise, a strict environmental policy is not a particularly good industrial policy with respect to developing new successful export sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Mads Greaker & Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2006. "Strategic Climate Policy in Small, Open Economies," Discussion Papers 448, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp448.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Venables, 1994. "Trade Policy under Imperfect Competition: A Numerical Assessment," NBER Chapters, in: Empirical Studies of Strategic Trade Policy, pages 41-66, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Ulph, Alistair, 1996. "Environmental Policy and International Trade when Governments and Producers Act Strategically," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 265-281, May.
    3. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    4. Jung, Chulho & Krutilla, Kerry & Boyd, Roy, 1996. "Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 95-111, January.
    5. Klaassen, Ger & Miketa, Asami & Larsen, Katarina & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2005. "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 227-240, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zugravu-Soilita, Natalia, 2017. "Trade in Environmental Goods: Empirical Exploration of Direct and Indirect Effects on Pollution by Country’s Trade Status," EIA: Climate Change: Economic Impacts and Adaptation 266287, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Bye, Brita & Jacobsen, Karl, 2011. "Restricted carbon emissions and directed R&D support; an applied general equilibrium analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 543-555, May.
    3. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2019. "Trade in Environmental Goods and Air Pollution: A Mediation Analysis to Estimate Total, Direct and Indirect Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1125-1162, November.
    4. Bye, Brita & Fæhn, Taran & Heggedal, Tom-Reiel, 2009. "Welfare and growth impacts of innovation policies in a small, open economy; an applied general equilibrium analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1075-1088, September.
    5. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Jacobsen, Karl, 2011. "Timing of innovation policies when carbon emissions are restricted: An applied general equilibrium analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 913-937.
    6. Solveig Delabroye, 2014. "The Eco-Industry and Trade Agreements," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-45, CIRANO.
    7. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2016. "Trade in environmental goods and sustainable development: What are we learning from the transition economies’ experience?," Working Papers 2016.16, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    8. Brita Bye & Karl Jacobsen, 2009. "On general versus emission saving R&D support," Discussion Papers 584, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Greaker, Mads & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 246-259, November.

    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. Greaker, Mads & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 246-259, November.
    2. Shoji Haruna & Rajeev K. Goel, 2019. "Optimal pollution control in a mixed oligopoly with research spillovers," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 21-40, March.
    3. Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard G., 2008. "Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 142-162, March.
    4. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    5. Bahar Erbas & David Abler, 2008. "Environmental Policy with Endogenous Technology from a Game Theoretic Perspective: The Case of the US Pulp and Paper Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 425-444, July.
    6. Greaker, Mads, 2006. "Spillovers in the development of new pollution abatement technology: A new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 411-420, July.
    7. Mads Greaker, 2004. "Industrial Competitiveness and Diffusion of New Pollution Abatement Technology - a new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Discussion Papers 371, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. Rabah Amir & Adriana Gama & Katarzyna Werner, 2018. "On Environmental Regulation of Oligopoly Markets: Emission versus Performance Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 147-167, May.
    9. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    10. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    11. Daigee Shaw & Ming-Feng Hung, 2001. "Evolution and evaluation of air pollution control policy in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(3), pages 141-166, September.
    12. Parry, Ian W H, 1998. "Pollution Regulation and the Efficiency Gains from Technological Innovation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 229-254, November.
    13. Qi Zhu, 2017. "A Perspective of Evolution for Carbon Emissions Trading Market: The Dilemma between Market Scale and Government Regulation," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-7, February.
    14. Frans P. de Vries, 2007. "Market Structure and Technology Diffusion Incentives under Emission Taxes and Emission Reduction Subsidies," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(2), pages 256-268, June.
    15. Khanna, Madhu & Zilberman, David, 2001. "Adoption of energy efficient technologies and carbon abatement: the electricity generating sector in India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 637-658, November.
    16. Spyros Arvanitis & Michael Peneder & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2016. "The adoption of green energy technologies: The role of policies in an international comparison," KOF Working papers 16-411, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    17. Parry, Ian W H & Pizer, William A & Fischer, Carolyn, 2003. "How Large Are the Welfare Gains from Technological Innovation Induced by Environmental Policies?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 237-255, May.
    18. Kristoffer Palage & Robert Lundmark & Patrik Söderholm, 2019. "The innovation effects of renewable energy policies and their interaction: the case of solar photovoltaics," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(2), pages 217-254, April.
    19. Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard G., 2005. "Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Change and Renewable Energy," Discussion Papers 10789, Resources for the Future.
    20. Zeng, Bingxin & Zhu, Lei & Yao, Xing, 2020. "Policy choice for end-of-pipe abatement technology adoption under technological uncertainty," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 121-130.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Strategic climate policy; Abatement technology; Small; open economies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:ssb:dispap:448. 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: L Maasø (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbgvno.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.