Search results

AbstractIf one region of the world switches its research effort from dirty to clean technologies, will other regions follow? To investigate this question, this paper builds a North–South model that combines insights from directed technological change and quality-ladder endogenous growth models with business-stealing innovations. While North represents the region with climate ambitions, both regions have researchers choosing between clean and dirty applications, and the resulting technologies are traded. Three main results emerge: (1) In the long run, if the North's research and development (R&D) sector is sufficiently large, researchers in South will follow the switch from dirty to clean R&D made by researchers in North, motivated by the growing value of clean markets. (2) If the two regions direct research effort toward different sectors and the outputs of the two sectors are gross substitutes, then the long-run growth rates in both regions will be lower than if the global research effort were invested in one sector. (3) If the North's government induces its researchers to switch to clean R&D through clean technology subsidies, the welfare-maximising choice for South is to ensure that all of its researchers switch too, unless the social discount rate is high. The last result is true even if the South's R&D sector is large.

Abstract
Policies that are introduced to mitigate adverse consequences of climate change involve economic costs. For some households, these costs will materialise in the form of an increase in prices of consumption goods, whereas for others they will materialise in the form of falling productivity and wages. Disentangling these two effects is important in the light of the design of funds that aim to support the households that are negatively affected by climate policy. In this article, we study the effect of carbon tax on welfare through changes of consumer prices and wages in a general equilibrium setting. In the first step, we review the literature on 'top-down' models, which are used to evaluate the macroeconomic cost of climate policy. We find that these models usually do not account for loss of productivity of workers who must change their sector due to climate policy. In the second step, we develop a theoretical, micro-founded, two-sector model that explicitly accounts for the loss of productivity of workers. The compensation of climate-change mitigation costs would require allocation of separate funds for the affected consumers and workers.