Increased transmission capacity and diminishing returns to scale in power production capacities have raised the opportunity cost of electricity in many countries. The resulting market changes have often been counteracted by policy, i.e. subsidized electricity prices to for instance energy intensive industries. Firm data, emphasizing cost heterogeneity, confirm that a large share of Norwegian energy intensive firms would not be profitable in the long run if they lose their present electricity subsidies. However, CGE estimates show that removing the subsidies allows a tax cut that is more than sufficient to bring about the changes in relative prices needed to restore internal and external balances.
AlfsenK.H.ByeT.HolmϕyE. (eds.) (1996). Msg-EE: An Applied General Equilibrium Model for Energy and Environmental Analysis, Social and Economic Studies 96, Statistics Norway, Oslo.
2.
AukrustO. (1977). “Inflation in the Open Economy: a Norwegian Model”, inKrauseL.SalantW.S. (eds.), Worldwide Inflation: Theory and Recent Experience, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 109-153.
3.
AwB.Y.ChungS.RobertsM.J. (2000). Productivity and Turnover in the Export Market: MicroLevel Evidence from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (China), World Bank Economic Review 14, 65-90.
4.
BailyN.M.HultenC.CampbellD. (1992). Productivity Dynamics in Manufacturing Plants, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 187-268.
5.
BernardA.B.JensenJ.B. (1999). Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect or Both? Journal of International Economics 47, 1-25.
6.
BernardA.B.JensenJ.B. (2001), Why Some Firms Export, NBER Working Paper no. 9026.
7.
BernardA.B.WagnerJ. (2001). Export Entry and Exit by German Firms, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv - Review of World Economics 137, 105-123.
8.
BernardA.B.EatonJ.JensenB.KortumS. (2003). Plants and Productivity in International Trade, NBER Working Paper no. 7688, Forthcoming in American Economic Review.
9.
BewleyT.F. (1997). Why Not Cut Pay? Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 1167, Yale University.
10.
BiϕrnE.LindquistK.-G.SkjerpenT. (2002). Heterogeneity in Returns to Scale: A Random Coefficient Analysis with Unbalanced Panel Data, Journal of Productivity Analysis 18, 39-57.
11.
BjertnasG.H.FahnT. (2004). Energy Taxation in a Small Open Economy: Efficiency Gains Under Political Constraints, Discussion Papers 387, Oslo: Statistics Norway.
12.
BovenbergL. (1999). Green Tax Reforms and the Double Dividend: An Updated Reader’s Guide, International Tax and Public Finance 6, 421-443.
13.
BowitzE.CappelenA. (2001). Modeling Income Policies: Some Norwegian Experiences 19731993, Economic Modelling 18 (3), 349-379.
14.
ByeTorsteinHolm0yE.HeideK.M. (2006). Removing policy based comparative advantage for energy intensive production. Necessary adjustments of the real exchange rate and industry structure. Discussion Papers 462, Oslo: Statistics Norway.
15.
CleridesS.K.LackS.TyboutJ.R. (1998). Is Learning by Exporting Important? Micro-Dynamic Evidence from Colombia, Mexico and Morocco, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 903-947.
16.
DimarananB. V.McDougallR.A. (2002). Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 5 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, Indiana, US.
17.
FrancoisJ.Van MeijlH.Van TongerenF. (2003). Trade Liberalization and Developing Countries Under the Doha Round, CEPR Discussion Paper 4032, www.cepr.org/bubs/dps/DP4032.asp.
18.
FæhnT.HolmϕyE. (2000). “Welfare Effects of Trade Liberalisation on Distorted Economies: A Dynamic General Equilibrium Assessment for Norway”. Ch. 6 inHarrisonG.W.Hougaard JensenS.E.Haagen PedersenL.RutherfordT.F. (eds.): Using Dynamic Equilibrium Models for Policy Analysis, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 171-202.
19.
FahnT.Holm0yE. (2003). Trade liberalization and effects on pollutive emissions to air and deposits of solid waste. A general equiblirium assessment for Norway. Economic Modelling 20 (4), 703-727.
20.
GhironiF.MerlitzM.J. (2005). International Trade and Macroeconomic Dynamics with Heterogeneous Firms, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, August2005, 120(3), 865-915
21.
GoulderL. H. (1995). Environmental Taxation and the “Double Dividend”: A Reader’s Guide, International Tax and Public Finance, 2, 155-182.
22.
HausmanR.RodrikD. (2003), Economic Development and Self-Discovery, Journal of Development Economics, December2003, 72 (2), 603-633.
23.
HausmanR.HwangJ.RodrikD. (2005). What you Export Matters, http://ksghome.harvard.edu/∼drodrik/papers.html.
24.
HeideK.M.Holm0yE.LerskauL.SolliI.F. (2004). Macroeconomic Properties of the Norwegian Applied General Equilibrium Model MSG6. Reports 2004/18, Statistics Norway, Oslo.
25.
HeijdraB. J.KeuschniggC.KohlerW. (2002). Eastern Enlargement of the EU: Jobs, Investment and Welfare in Present Member Countries, CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper no. 718 (7).
26.
HershA.WellerC. (2003). Does Manufacturing Matter? Challenge 46 (2), 59-79.
27.
HolmoyE.HagelandT. (1997). Aggregate Productivity Effects of Technology Shocks in a Model of Heterogeneous Firms: The Importance of Equilibrium Adjustments, Discussion Papers 197, Statistics Norway.
28.
HouthakkerH. (1955-56). The Pareto Distribution and the Cobb-Douglas Production Function in Activity Analysis, Review of Economic Studies 23, 27-31.
29.
JohansenL. (1959). Substitution Versus Fixed Coefficients in the Theory of Economic Growth, Econo-metrica 27, 157-176.
30.
JohansenL. (1960). A multi-sectoral study of economic growth, Amsterdam: North Holland.
31.
JohansenL. (1972). Production Functions, Amsterdam: North Holland.
32.
ITPS A2004:19: Institutet for Tilvextpolitiska Studier (ITPS) (2004). Basisindustrin och Kyoto. Effekter pa Konkurrenskraft av Handel med Utslappsratter. The Base Manufacturing Industry and Kyoto. Consequences for Competition from Tradable Permits. Ostersund (www.itps.se).
33.
KehoePJ.KehoeTJ. (1995). Modelling North American Economic Integration, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34.
KehoeT.J. (2003). An Evaluation of the Performance of Applied General Equilibrium Models of the Impact of NAFTA, Research Department Staff Report 320, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
35.
KletteT.J. (1999). Market Power, Scale Economies and Productivity: Estimates from a Panel of Establishment Data, The Journal of Industrial Economics 110, 451-75.
36.
KletteT.J.RaknerudA. (2005). Heterogeneity, Productivity and Selection: An Empirical Study of Norwegian Manufacturing Firms, Discussion Paper 401, Oslo: Statistics Norway.
37.
KohlerW.KeuschniggC. (2000). An Incumbent Country View on Eastern Enlargement of the EU - part I: A General Treatment, Empirica 27, 325-351.
38.
KohlerW.KeuschniggC. (2001). An Incumbent Country View on Eastern Enlargement of the EU - part II: The Case of Austria, Empirica 28, 159-185.
39.
KrugmanP. (1987). The Narrow Moving Band, the Dutch Disease, and the Competitive Consequences of Mrs. Thatcher, Journal of Development Economics 27, 41-55.
40.
KrugmanP. (1991). Increasing Returns and Economic Geography, Journal of Political Economy 99, 483-499.
41.
KrugmanP. (1996). Pop Internationalism, Boston: MIT Press.
42.
LindquistK-G.SkjerpenT. (1995). The Existence of Factor Substitution in the Primary Aluminium Industry: A Multivariate Error-Correction Approach using Norwegian Panel Data, Empirical Economics 20 (3), 361-383.
43.
MadsenA.D.S0rensenM. (2002). Effects of Trade and Market Integration in a Small Open Economy - A Dynamic CGE Approach, www.dreammodel.dk.
44.
MatsenE.TorvikR. (2003). Optimal Dutch Disease, Working Paper 2003/3, Oslo: Central Bank of Norway.
45.
MerlitzM.J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity, Econometrica 71 (6), 1695-1725.
46.
Mooijde R.A. (1999). The Double Dividend of an Environmental Tax Reform, in van den Berg (ed.)
47.
Handbook of Environmental Economics, London: Edward Elgar, 293-306.
48.
NaugB. (1994). En ϕkonometrisk analyse av utviklingen i importandelene for industrivarer 1968-1990. An Econometric Analysis of the Development of Import Shares for Manufacturing Products 1968-1990, Social and Economic Studies 84, Oslo: Statistics Norway.
