Asymmetric Price Responses and the Underlying Energy Demand Trend: Are they Substitutes or Complements? Evidence from Modelling OECD Aggregate Energy Demand
Olutomi I Adeyemi (Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC), Department of Economics, University of Surrey) David C Broadstock () (Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC), Department of Economics, University of Surrey) Mona Chitnis () (Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC) and Research Group on Lifestyles Values and Environment (RESOLVE), University of Surrey) Lester C Hunt () (Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC), Department of Economics, University of Surrey) Guy Judge () (Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth)
Additional information is available for the following
registered author(s):
A number of energy demand studies have considered the importance of modelling Asymmetric Price Responses (APR), for example, the often-cited work of Gately and Huntington (2002). Griffin and Schulman (2005) questioned the asymmetric approach arguing that this is only capturing energy saving technical progress. Huntington (2006), however, showed that for whole economy aggregate energy and oil demand there is a role statistically for both APR and exogenous energy saving technical change. In a separate strand of the literature the idea of the Underlying Energy Demand Trend (UEDT) has been developed, see for example Hunt et al. (2003a and 2003b) and Dimitropoulos et al. (2005). They argue that it is important, in time series energy demand models, to allow for stochastic trends (or UEDTs) based upon the structural time series/dynamic regression methodology recommended by Harvey (1989, 1997). This paper attempts to bring these strands of the literature together by conducting tests for the UEDT and APR in energy demand models within both a panel context (consistent with the Huntington, 2006 approach) and the structural time series modelling framework. A set of tests across a range of specifications using time-series and panel data are therefore undertaken in order to ascertain whether energy saving technical change (or the more general UEDT) and APR are substitutes for each other when modelling energy demand or whether they are actually picking up different influences and are therefore complements. Using annual whole economy data for 17 OECD countries over the period 1960 – 2004 the results suggest that in general the UEDT and ARP are complementary estimation methodologies when modelling aggregate energy demand. It is argued therefore that energy demand modellers should not assume at the outset that one method is superior to the other. Moreover, wherever possible, a general model (be it in a time series or panel context) that includes a ‘non linear UEDT’ and APR should be initially estimated, and only if accepted by the data should symmetry and/or a more restrictive UEDT be imposed.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation and Testing Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: