This paper reports how endogenous economic growth and technological change have been introduced into a global econometric model. It explains how further technological change might be induced by mitigation policies so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize atmospheric concentrations. These are the first results of a structural econometric approach to modeling the global economy using the model E3MG (energy-environment-economy model of the globe), which in turn constitutes one component in the Community Integrated Assessment System (CIAS) of the UK Tyndall Centre. The model is simplified to provide a post-Keynesian view of the long-run, with an indicator of technological progress affecting each region’s exports and energy use. When technological progress is endogenous in this way, long-run growth in global GDP is partly explained by the model. Average permit prices and tax rates about $430/tC (1995) prices after 2050 are sufficient to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at 450ppm CO2 after 2100. They also lead to higher economic growth.
AbadirK.M. (2004). “Cointegration theory, equilibrium and disequilibrium economics.” The Manchester School72 (1): 60-71.
2.
AghionP.HowittP. (1998). Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
AndersonD.WinneS. (2004). “Modelling innovation and threshold effects in climate change mitigation”. Tyndall Working Paper 59. Accessed at http://ww.tyndall.ac.uk.
4.
ArrowK.J. (1962). “The economic implications of learning by doing.” Review of Economic Studies, 29: 155-173.
5.
AtkinsonJ.ManningN. (1995). “A survey of international energy elasticities.” BarkerT.EkinsP.JohnstoneN. eds. Global Warming and Energy Demand, Routledge. pp. 47-105.
6.
BarkerT.PetersonW. eds.(1987). The Cambridge Multisectoral Dynamic Model of the British Economy. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BarkerT. (1999). “Achieving a 10% cut in Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions using additional excise duties: coordinated, uncoordinated and unilateral action using the econometric model E3ME.” Economic Systems Research, 11 (4): 401-421.
8.
BarkerT. (2004). “Economic theory and the transition to sustainability: a comparison of general-equilibrium and space-time-economics approaches.” Tyndall Working Paper62, Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia, November.
9.
BarkerT.RosendahlK.E. (2000). “Ancillary Benefits of GHG Mitigation in Europe: SO2, NOx and PM10 reductions from policies to meet Kyoto targets using the E3ME model and EXTERNE valuations.” Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Proceedings of an IPCC Co-Sponsored Workshop, March. OECD, Paris.
10.
BarkerT.De-RamonS. (2006). “Testing the representative agent assumption: the distribution of parameters in a large-scale model of the EU 1972-1998.” Applied Economic Letters, forthcoming.
11.
CriquiP.KitousA.BerkM.den ElzenM.EickhoutB.LucasP.VuurenD.VanKouvaritakisN.VanregemorterD.2003. Greenhouse gas emission reduction pathways in the UNFCCC process up to 2025. Technical Report, study contract B4-3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for DG Environment.
12.
DalzielP.C.HarcourtG.C. (1997). “A note on ‘Mr Meade’s Relation’ and international capital movements.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(5): 621-31.
13.
DeCanioS. (2003). Economic Models of Climate Change A Critique. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
14.
DenisonE.F. (1985). Trends in American Economic Growth, 1929-1982. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
15.
EblingG.JanzN. (1999). “Export and innovation activities in the German service sector: empirical evidence at the firm level.” ZEW Centre for European Economic Research, Discussion Paper 99-53, Mannheim.
16.
EngleR.F.GrangerC.W.J. (1987). “Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing.” Econometrica55: 251-76.
FreemanC.LouçãF. (2001). As Time Goes By. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
FrondelM. (2004). “Energy conservation, the rebound effect, and future energy and transport technologies: an introduction to energy conservation and the rebound effect.” International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy2(3).
20.
GatelyD.HuntingtonH.G. (2002). “The asymmetric effects of changes in price and income on energy and oil demand.” Energy Journal23(1): 19-55.
21.
GoulderL.BovenbergA.LansGurneyD.J. (forthcoming). “Efficiency costs of meeting industry-distributional constraints under environmental permits and taxes.” Rand Journal of Economics.
22.
GrahamD.J.GlaisterS.2002. “The demand for automobile fuel: a survey of elasticities.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy36(1): 1-25.
23.
GreenhalghC.TaylorP.WilsonR. (1994). “Innovation and Export Volumes and Prices: A Dissaggregated Study.” Oxford Economic Papers46: 102-134.
24.
GreenhalghC.1990. “Innovation and Trade Performance in the UK.” Economic Journal100: 105-118.
25.
GriffinJ.M.SchulmanC.T. (2005). “Price asymmetry: a proxy for energy saving technical change.” Energy Journal, 26(2): 1-21.
26.
GritsevskyiANakicenovicN. (2000). “Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change.” Energy Policy28: 907-921.
27.
GrubbM.KöhlerJ.AndersonD. (2002). “Induced technical change in energy and environmental modelling: analytical approached and policy implications.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment27: 271-308.
28.
HerringH. (2004). “The rebound effect and energy conservation.” InClevelandC. eds., Encyclopadia of Energy. Academic Press/Elsevier Science. pp.237-44.
29.
HuntingtonH.G. (2005). “Price asymmetry as induced technical change” Energy Modeling Forum, Working Paper. Stanford, EMF OP 56 (Revised).
30.
KaldorN. (1957). “A model of economic growth.” Economic Journal67: 591-624.
31.
KaldorN. (1972). “The irrelevance of equilibrium economics.” Economic Journal52: 1237-55.
32.
KaldorN. (1985). Economics without Equilibrium. UK: Cardiff Press.
33.
KöhlerJ. (2005). “Making (Kondratiev) waves: simulating long run technical change.” InDewickP.MiozzoM.GreenK. eds. Technology, Knowledge and the Firm: Implications for Strategy and Industrial Change. Edward Elgar. pp.404-26.
34.
LachenmaierS.WößmannL. (2005). “Does innovation cause exports? Evidence from exogenous innovation impulses and obstacles using German micro data.” Oxford Economic Papers, 2005,in press.
35.
LeeK.PesaranM.H.PierceR. (1990). “Labour demand equations for the UK economy.” InBarkerT.PesaranM.H eds., Disaggregation in Econometric Modelling. London; New York: Routledge.
36.
León-LedesmaM. (2000). “R&D Spillovers and Export Performance: Evidence from the OECD Countries.” Studies in Economics 0014, Department of Economics, University of Kent.
37.
MaddisonA. (2001). The World Economy A Millennial Perspective. Paris: OECD.
38.
MagnierA.Toujas-BernateJ. (1994). “Technology and Trade: Empirical Evidence for the Five Major European Countries”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archive 130: 494-520.
39.
McCombieJ. M.ThirlwallA.P. (1994). Economic Growth and the Balance of Payments Constraint. New York: St Martin’s Press.
40.
McCombieJ.M.ThirlwallA.P. (2004). Essays on Balance of Payments Constrained Growth: Theory and Evidence. London, New York: Routledge Press.
41.
McDonaldA.SchrattenholzerL. (2001). “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies”, Energy Policy 29: 255-261.
42.
McFarlandJ.R.ReillyJ.HerzogH.J. (2004). “Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information.” Energy Economics26: 685 - 707.
43.
NakicenovicN.RiahiK. (2003). Model runs with MESSAGE in the Context of the Further Development of the Kyoto Protocol. Berlin, WBGU-German Advisory Council on Global Change, 2003. Accessed at http://www.wgbu.de.
44.
PalleyT.I. (2003). “Pitfalls in the theory of growth: an application to the balance of payments constrained growth model.” Review of Political Economy15(1): 75-84.
RomerP. (1986). “Increasing returns and long-run growth.” Journal of Political Economy94(5): 1002-37.
47.
RomerP. (1990). “Endogenous technological change.” Journal of Political Economy98 (5): S71-102.
48.
RoperS.LoveJ. (2001). “Innovation and export performance: evidence from UK and German manufacturing plants.” Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre, Working Paper no. 62.
49.
SchmooklerJ. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
50.
ScottM. (1989). A New View of Economic Growth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
51.
SetterfieldM. (1997). “‘History, versus, equilibrium, and the theory of economic growth.” Cambridge Journal of Economics21: 365-78.
52.
SetterfieldM. eds. (2002). The Economics of Demand-led Growth - Challenging the Supply-side Vision of the Long Run. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
53.
SolowR. (1956). “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Feb.: 65-94.
54.
SolowR. (1957). “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39:312-320.
55.
Van VuurenD.P.de VriesB.EickhoutB.KramT..(2004). “Responses to technology and taxes in a simulated world.” Energy Economics26: 579-601
56.
WakelinK. (1998). “The role of innovation in bilateral OECD trade performance”, Applied Economics 30(10): 1335-46.
57.
Watson, (2001). IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Summary for Policymakers. IPCC/WMO, Geneva.
58.
WeyantJ.P. (2004). ”Introduction and overview: Energy Economics Special Issue EMF 19 study Technology and Global Climate Change Policies.” Energy Economics 26: 501- 515.
59.
WolffE. (1994a). “Technology, Capital Accumulation, and Long Run Growth.” In J. Fagerberg, B. Verspagen, and von TunzelmannN. eds., The Dynamics of Technology, Trade, and Growth. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. pp. 53-74.
60.
WolffE. (1994b). “Productivity Growth and Capital Intensity on the Sector and Industry Level: Specialization among OECD Countries, 1970-1988.” In G. Silverberg andSoeteL. eds., The Economics of Growth and Technical Change: Technologies, Nations, Agents. Edward Elgar Publishing.
