The Effects of Environmental Policy on the Performance of Environmental RIVs

Much of the potential impact of environmental policy is though to come from the incentives it gives firms to develop and introduce new environmental products and processes. Almost all the literature on this issue has focused on the impact of environmental policy on the amount environmental R&D that firms undertake, assuming that such R&D is undertaken independently or non-cooperatively. It is now widely recognized that there are considerable potential benefits from having firms undertake R&D cooperatively through research joint ventures (RJVs). In this paper we analyze the impact of environmental policy on the performance of environmental RJVs and underage an explicit welfare comparison of this performance against the counterfactual of a non-cooperative equilibrium. The framework we adopt is that developed by Katsoulacos and Ulph (1998) which identifies three stages in the innovative process -- research design, R&D; information sharing -- and endogenises each of these inter-related decisions in both the cooperative and non-cooperative equilibria. The case we examine is that in which governments cannot commit to environmental policy, so all these decisions have to taken anticipating the environmental policy that will finally be imposed. We show that RJVs are welfare enhancing when the levels of environmental damage caused by pollution are low. In this case RJVs fully share information and internalize the associated externality. However when the level of damage is high, it turns out that firms anticipate tougher environmental policy when they share information then when they do not, and so do not share information. This distorts the RJV's R&D decisions in ways that make the non-cooperative equilibrium welfare enhancing.

Catching-up or Leapfrogging: The effects of competition on innovation and growth

This article analyzes the "escape from competition effect" in a step-by-step framework in which a succesful firm may either leapfrog the previous leader or catch-up its technology. Innovation and growth are affected by both the intensity of competition and the probability of leapfrogging.Leapfrogging, catch-up

Technology, Entrepreneurship, And Inequality

This paper links the rise of new industries populated by skill-intensive companies, and the divergence in labour incomes between skills. Our model explains inequality by the fact that as the skilled workers move towards new Silicon-Valley type firms, the reduced complementarity between skilled and unskilled workers in the traditional manufacturing sectors lessens the productivity of the latter. In addition, knowledge externalities in the modern sector produce two equilibria in which either the modern sector dominates (and inequality between skills is high), or manufacturing dominates (inequality is low). We provide suggestive evidence consistent with our model.-

Environmental policy when consumers value conformity

We present a model of consumer behaviour when consumers value conformity and examine the implications for environmental policy. The model shares a feature set out in Dasgupta, Southerton, Ulph and Ulph (2016) of having a structure of preferences for conformity which induces a mass of consumers to adhere exactly to a norm level of consumption (clumping). However we extend our previous analysis by analysing the conditions for the existence and potential uniqueness of consumption norms. In doing so we introduce threshold effects whereby individuals adhere to a norm only if sufficiently many others do so. Taken together these have striking implications for environmental policy in the case where the norm good generates pollution emissions. Clumping means many individuals will not change behaviour unless the norm changes while threshold effects plus clumping means that it may be hard to change a norm. We show that the use of Pigovian taxes to control behaviour may be either ineffective or welfare reducing, and that the optimal Pigovian tax will work only if it is above some threshold level. There are parameter values for which quantity-based injunctive policies raise welfare relative to no intervention while optimal Pigovian taxes would lower welfare.PostprintPeer reviewe

Optimal Climate Change Policies When Governments Cannot Commit

This paper examines the optimal design of climate change policies in the context where governments want to encourage the private sector to undertake significant immediate investment in developing cleaner technologies, but the carbon taxes and other environmental policies that could in principle stimulate such investment will be imposed over a very long future. The conventional claim by environmental economists is that environmental policies alone are sufficient to induce firms to undertake optimal investment. However this argument requires governments to be able to commit to these future taxes, and it is far from clear that governments have this degree of commitment. We assume instead that governments cannot commit, and so both they and the private sector have to contemplate the possibility of there being governments in power in the future that give different (relative) weights to the environment. We show that this lack of commitment has a significant asymmetric effect. Compared to the situation where governments can commit it increases the incentive of the current government to have the investment undertaken, but reduces the incentive of the private sector to invest. Consequently governments may need to use additional policy instruments – such as R&D subsidies – to stimulate the required investment

Optimal Climate Change Policies When Governments Cannot Commit

This paper examines the optimal design of climate change policies in the context where governments want to encourage the private sector to undertake significant immediate investment in developing cleaner technologies, but the carbon taxes and other environmental policies that could in principle stimulate such investment will be imposed over a very long future. The conventional claim by environmental economists is that environmental policies alone are sufficient to induce firms to undertake optimal investment. However this argument requires governments to be able to commit to these future taxes, and it is far from clear that governments have this degree of commitment. We assume instead that governments cannot commit, and so both they and the private sector have to contemplate the possibility of there being governments in power in the future that give different (relative) weights to the environment. We show that this lack of commitment has a significant asymmetric effect. Compared to the situation where governments can commit it increases the incentive of the current government to have the investment undertaken, but reduces the incentive of the private sector to invest. Consequently governments may need to use additional policy instruments – such as R&D subsidies – to stimulate the required investment

Optimal universal and categorical benefits with classification errors and imperfect enforcement

We determine the optimal combination of a universal benefit, B, and categorical benefit, C, for an economy in which individuals differ in both their ability to work – modelled as an exogenous zero quantity constraint on labour supply – and, conditional on being able to work, their productivity at work. C is targeted at those unable to work, and is conditioned in two dimensions: ex-ante an individual must be unable to work to be awarded the benefit , whilst ex-post a recipient must not subsequently work. However, the ex-ante conditionality may be imperfectly enforced due to Type I(false rejection) and Type II (false award) classification errors, whilst, in addition, the ex post conditionality may be imperfectly enforced. If there are no classification errors – and thus no enforcement issues – it is always optimal to set C>0, whilst B=0 only if the benefit budget is sufficiently small. However, when classification errors occur, B=0 only if there are no Type I errors and the benefit budget is sufficiently small, while the conditions under which C>0 depend on the enforcement of the ex-post conditionality. We consider two discrete alternatives. Under No Enforcement C>0 only if the test administering C has some discriminatory power. In addition, social welfare is decreasing in the propensity to make each type of error. However, under Full Enforcement C>0 for all levels of discriminatory power, including that of no discriminatory power. Furthermore, whilst social welfare is decreasing in the propensity to make Type I errors, there are certain conditions under which it is increasing in the propensity to make Type II errors. This implies that there may be conditions under which it would be welfare enhancing to lower the chosen eligibility threshold – supporting the suggestion by Goodin (1985) to “err on the side of kindness”.Postprin

Un modèle non coopératif de consommation des ménages

Cet article construit un modèle de consommation du ménage fondé sur un équilibre non coopératif de Nash. Ce modèle est extrêmement général, tant du point de vue des types de biens et de revenus considérés que de la nature des fonctions d’utilité individuelles. Les conditions d’unicité d’un tel équilibre sont déduites; on montre que, malgré la généralité de sa structure sous-jacente, des contraintes fortes sont placées sur les demandes de biens issues des modèles respectant ces conditions d’unicité. Les propriétés générales de statique comparée des demandes de biens du ménage sont dérivées.The paper constructs a non-cooperative Nash model of household consumption behaviour which is extremely general in both the pattern of intra-household flows for commodities and income that are permitted, and in the nature of the individual utility functions that are employed. Conditions are derived for the uniqueness of such equilibria, and it is shown that, despite the generality of the underlying structure, some striking restrictions can be placed on household commodity demands arising from models satisfying these conditions. The general comparative static properties of household commodity demands are derived

Avoidance Policies – A New Conceptual Framework

This paper develops a general theoretical framework within which a heterogeneous group taxpayers confront a market that supplies a variety of schemes for reducing tax liability, and uses this framework to explore the impact of a wide range of anti-avoidance policies. Schemes differ in their legal effectiveness and hence in the risks to which they expose taxpayers - risks which go beyond the risk of audit considered in the conventional literature on evasion. Given the individual taxpayer’s circumstances, the prices charged for the schemes and the policy environment, the model predicts (i) whether or not any given taxpayer will acquire a scheme, and (ii) if they do so, which type of scheme they will acquire. The paper then analyses how these decisions, and hence the tax gap, are influenced by four generic types of policy: Disclosure – earlier information leading to faster closure of loopholes; Penalties – introduction of penalties for failed avoidance; Policy Design – fundamental policy changes that design out opportunities for avoidance; Product Register - the introduction of GAARs or mini-GAARs that give greater clarity about how different types of scheme will be treated. The paper shows that when considering the indirect/behavioural effects of policies on the tax gap it is important to recognise that these operate on two different margins. First policies will have deterrence effects – their impact on the quantum of taxpayers choosing to acquire different types schemes as distinct to acquiring no scheme at all. There will be a range of such deterrence effects reflecting the range of schemes available in the market. But secondly, since different schemes generate different tax gaps, policies will also have switching effects as they induce taxpayers who previously acquired one type of scheme to acquire another. The first three types of policy generate positive deterrence effects but differ in the switching effects they produce. The fourth type of policy produces mixed deterrence effects