Modelling the Health Related Benefits of Environmental Policies and Their Feedback Effects: A CGE Analysis for the EU Countries with GEM-E3

Abstract

A number of recent studies on taxation in the presence of externalities in a second-best framework consider the implications of taking into account the feedback effects of environmental quality. This paper explores by means of GEM-E3, a computable general equilibrium model for the EU countries, the importance of the feedback effects of the health related benefits from an environmental policy. The modelling framework implemented in GEM-E3 allows for three channels through which the feedback can occur: a decrease in medical expenditure, an increase in the consumers’ available time and an increase of labour productivity in the production sectors. The results show that the explicit modelling of the health related effect of air pollution on consumers and producers allows for a more precise evaluation of the impact of environmental policies on private consumption and employment. Relative to the included benefits the feedback effects are large. However, in terms of global effect, the impacts of the feedback are small, compared to the standard GEM-E3 model where the health related benefits are evaluated ex-post.

Keywords

Applied CGE model non-separable externalities CO2 tax environment ancillary benefits GEM-E3

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bergman

Hill

(2000). “Productivity and Growth Effects of Acidification: A Dynamic CGE Modelling Study of Sweden.” In Schmidt

ed., GEM-E3-ELITE, European Emission Mitigation Policy and Technological Evolution: Economic Evaluation with the GEM-E3-EG Model^Final report for DG RES.

Bosello

Roson

Tol

R.S.J.

(2006). “Economy-wide Estimates of the Implications of Climate Change: Human Health.” Ecological Economics 58: 579-591.

Chung-Li

(2002). “Including the Feedback of Local Health Improvement in Assessing Costs and Benefits of GHG Reduction.” Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 14: 282-304.

de Mooij

R.A.

(1999). Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend. Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

ECOFYS Energy and Environment, AEA Technology Environment and National Technical University Athens (2001). “Economic Evaluation of Sectoral Emission Reduction Objectives for Climate Change.” ECOFYS Energy and Environment, The Netherlands, AEA Technology Environment, U.K., National Technical University Athens, Greece.

ExternE (1996, 1998, 2000). “Externalities of Energy.” 1996, 1998 update and 2000 update, European Commission, DG RES.

Freeman

A.M.

(2003). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Friedrich

Bickel

(eds.)(2001). Environmental External Costs of Transport. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Mayeres

Proost

(1997). “Optimal Tax and Public Investment Rules for Congestion Type of Externalities.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99: 261-279.

10.

Mayeres

Proost

(2001). “Tax Reform, Externalities and Income Distribution.” Journal of Public Economics 79: 343-363.

11.

Proost

Van Regemorter

(1998). “Equitable and Efficient Allocation of Air Pollution in a Federation - Confronting Partial and General Equilibrium Analysis of a Pigouvian Tax.” Paper presented at the NBER workshop on Public Policy and the Environment, Boston.

12.

Schwartz

Repetto

(2000). “Nonseparable Utility and the Double Dividend Debate: Reconsidering the Tax Interaction Effect.” Environmental and Resource Economics 15: 149-157.

13.

Williams

R.C. III

(2002). “Environmental Tax Interactions when Pollution Affects Health or Productivity.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 261-270.

14.

Williams

R.C. III

(2003). “Health Effects and Optimal Environmental Taxes.” Journal of Public Economics 87: 323-335.