IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemei/256059.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sensitivity of Modeling Results to Technological and Regional Details: The Case of Italy’s Carbon Mitigation Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriele Standardi
  • Yiyong Cai
  • Sonia Yeh

Abstract

Model differences in technological and geographical scales are common, but their contributions to uncertainties have not been systematically quantified in the climate policy literature. This paper carries out a systematic assessment on the sensitivity of Computable General Equilibrium models to technological and geographical scales in evaluating the economic impacts of carbon mitigation policies. Taking Italy as an example, we find that the estimation for carbon price and the economic cost of a de-carbonization pathway by means of a model with technological and regional details can be lower than a model without such details by up to 40%. Additionally, the effect of representing regional details appears to be far more important than the effect of representing the details of electricity technology in both the estimated carbon prices and the estimated economic impacts. Our results for Italy highlight the importance of modeling uncertainties of these two key assumptions, which should be appropriately acknowledged when applying CGE models for policy impact assessment. Our conclusions can be generalized to different countries and policy scenarios not in terms of absolute numbers but in terms of economic explanations. In particular, intra-national trade and the sub-national sectoral/technological specialization are important variables for understanding the economic dynamics behind these outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriele Standardi & Yiyong Cai & Sonia Yeh, 2017. "Sensitivity of Modeling Results to Technological and Regional Details: The Case of Italy’s Carbon Mitigation Policy," EIA: Climate Change: Economic Impacts and Adaptation 256059, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemei:256059
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.256059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/256059/files/NDL2017-019.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.256059?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    2. Carlo Orecchia & Ramiro Parrado, 2013. "Including non-CO2 Emissions in the European ETS," Review of Environment, Energy and Economics - Re3, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, October.
    3. Hu, Jing & Crijns-Graus, Wina & Lam, Long & Gilbert, Alyssa, 2015. "Ex-ante evaluation of EU ETS during 2013–2030: EU-internal abatement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 152-163.
    4. Narayanan, Badri G. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Horridge, J. Mark, 2010. "Disaggregated data and trade policy analysis: The value of linking partial and general equilibrium models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 755-766, May.
    5. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    6. Durand-Lasserve, Olivier & Pierru, Axel & Smeers, Yves, 2010. "Uncertain long-run emissions targets, CO2 price and global energy transition: A general equilibrium approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5108-5122, September.
    7. Francesco Bosello & Lorenza Campagnolo & Carlo Carraro & Fabio Eboli & Ramiro Parrado & Elisa Portale, 2013. "Macroeconomic Impacts of the EU 30% GHG Mitigation Target," Working Papers 2013.28, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, 1995. "Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 891-951, July.
    9. Olarreaga, Marcelo & Soloaga, Isidro, 1998. "Endogenous Tariff Formation: The Case of Mercosur," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 12(2), pages 297-320, May.
    10. Warwick J. Mckibbin & Adele C. Morris & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2011. "Comparing Climate Commitments: A Model-Based Analysis Of The Copenhagen Accord," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 79-103.
    11. Bohringer, Christoph & Rutherford, Thomas F. & Tarr, David G. & Turdyeva, Natalia, 2014. "The environmental implications of Russia's accession to the world trade organization," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6957, The World Bank.
    12. Canning, Patrick N. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2000. "Regionalism, Federalism, and Taxation: A Food and Farm Perspective," Technical Bulletins 33585, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Russell H. Hillberry, 2002. "Aggregation bias, compositional change, and the border effect," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 517-530, August.
    14. Bohringer, Christoph, 1998. "The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 233-248, June.
    15. Orecchia, Carlo & Parrado, Ramiro, 2013. "A Quantitative Assessment of the Implications of Including non-CO2 Emissions in the European ETS," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 162416, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    16. David Pearce, 2012. "Policy Forum: Designing a Carbon Price Policy: Empirical Uncertainties in Climate Policy Implementation," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 45(1), pages 114-124, February.
    17. Standardi, Gabriele & Bosello, Francesco & Eboli, Fabio, 2014. "A Sub-national CGE Model for Italy," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 163596, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Beghin, John C & Kherallah, Mylene, 1994. "Political Institutions and International Patterns of Agricultural Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 482-489, August.
    19. Lorenzo Carrera & Gabriele Standardi & Francesco Bosello & Jaroslav Mysiak, 2014. "Assessing Direct and Indirect Economic Impacts of a Flood Event Through the Integration of Spatial and Computable General Equilibrium Modelling," Working Papers 2014.82, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Gunnar Luderer & Valentina Bosetti & Michael Jakob & Marian Leimbach & Jan Steckel & Henri Waisman & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2012. "The economics of decarbonizing the energy system—results and insights from the RECIPE model intercomparison," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 9-37, September.
    21. Ottmar Edenhofer & Carlo Carraro & Jean-Charles Hourcade, 2012. "On the economics of decarbonization in an imperfect world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 1-8, September.
    22. Philip D. Adams & Brian R. Parmenter & George Verikios, 2014. "An Emissions Trading Scheme for Australia: National and Regional Impacts," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 90(290), pages 316-344, September.
    23. John Beghin & Cheng Fang, 2002. "Protection and Trade Liberalization under Incomplete Market Integration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(3), pages 768-773.
    24. Pomfret, Richard, 1985. "Categorical Aggregation and International Trade: A Comment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(378), pages 483-485, June.
    25. McFarland, J. R. & Reilly, J. M. & Herzog, H. J., 2004. "Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using bottom-up information," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 685-707, July.
    26. Glyn Wittwer & Mark Horridge, 2010. "Bringing Regional Detail to a CGE Model using Census Data," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 229-255.
    27. Cai, Yiyong & Arora, Vipin, 2015. "Disaggregating electricity generation technologies in CGE models: A revised technology bundle approach with an application to the U.S. Clean Power Plan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 543-555.
    28. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-160, February.
    29. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-623, June.
    30. Noel Gaston & Daniel Trefler, 1997. "The Labour Market Consequences of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 18-41, February.
    31. Chintrakarn, Pandej & Millimet, Daniel L., 2006. "The environmental consequences of trade: Evidence from subnational trade flows," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 430-453, July.
    32. Hanoch, Giora, 1971. "CRESH Production Functions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 695-712, September.
    33. Wing, Ian Sue, 2006. "The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: Electric power technologies and the cost of limiting US CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3847-3869, December.
    34. Peterson, Everett B. & Schleich, Joachim & Duscha, Vicki, 2011. "Environmental and economic effects of the Copenhagen pledges and more ambitious emission reduction targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3697-3708, June.
    35. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685.
    36. Zhang, Da & Rausch, Sebastian & Karplus, Valerie J. & Zhang, Xiliang, 2013. "Quantifying regional economic impacts of CO2 intensity targets in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 687-701.
    37. Cai, Yiyong & Newth, David & Finnigan, John & Gunasekera, Don, 2015. "A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 381-395.
    38. Noel Gaston & Daniel Trefler, 1994. "Protection, Trade, and Wages: Evidence from U.S. Manufacturing," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 47(4), pages 574-593, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Narayanan, Badri & Thomas Hertel & Mark Horridge, 2010. "Linking Partial and General Equilibrium Models: A GTAP Application Using TASTE," GTAP Technical Papers 3192, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    2. Narayanan, Badri G. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Horridge, J. Mark, 2010. "Disaggregated data and trade policy analysis: The value of linking partial and general equilibrium models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 755-766, May.
    3. Pérez-Blanco, C. D & Standardi, G., 2019. "Farm waters run deep: a coupled positive multi-attribute utility programming and computable general equilibrium model to assess the economy-wide impacts of water buyback," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 336-351.
    4. Cai, Yiyong & Newth, David & Finnigan, John & Gunasekera, Don, 2015. "A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 381-395.
    5. Nicholas Crafts & Alexander Klein, 2015. "Geography and intra-national home bias: U.S. domestic trade in 1949 and 2007," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 477-497.
    6. Alessandro Olper & Valentina Raimondi, 2008. "Explaining National Border Effects in the QUAD Food Trade," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 436-462, September.
    7. Alessandro Olper & Valentina Raimondi, 2008. "Market Access Asymmetry in Food Trade," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 144(3), pages 509-537, October.
    8. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    9. Yuan Li & John C. Beghin, 2017. "A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 4, pages 63-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Whalley, John & Xin, Xian, 2009. "Home and regional biases and border effects in Armington type models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 309-319, March.
    11. Kei-Mu Yi, 2010. "Can Multistage Production Explain the Home Bias in Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 364-393, March.
    12. Cletus C. Coughlin & Dennis Novy, 2021. "Estimating Border Effects: The Impact Of Spatial Aggregation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1453-1487, November.
    13. Daniel J. Henderson & Daniel L. Millimet, 2008. "Is gravity linear?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 137-172.
    14. Goldberg, Pinelopi & Pavcnik, Nina, 2016. "The Effects of Trade Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 11104, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Perez Blanco, C.D., 2018. "Waters run deep: A coupled Revealed Preference and CGE model to assess the economy-wide impacts of agricultural water buyback," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277028, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Frank van Tongeren & Robert Koopman & Stephen Karingi & John Reilly & Joseph Francois, 2021. "Back to the Future: A 25-Year Retrospective on GTAP and the Shaping of a New Agenda," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Peter Dixon & Joseph Francois & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe (ed.), POLICY ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY A Festschrift Celebrating Thomas Hertel, chapter 3, pages 41-93, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Olper, Alessandro & Curzi, Daniele & Frisio, Dario Gianfranco & Raimondi, Valentina, 2012. "Home Bias in Consumption: A Comparison between Wine and Beer," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(4).
    18. Olper, Alessandro & Curzi, Daniele & Frisio, Dario Gianfranco & Raimondi, Valentina, 2012. "Home Bias in Consumption: A Comparison between Wine and Beer," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(04), pages 1-12, November.
    19. Zhiqi Chen & Horatiu A. Rus & Anindya Sen, 2016. "Border Effects Before and After 9/11: Panel Data Evidence Across Industries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 1456-1481, October.
    20. Kei-Mu Yi, 2005. "Vertical specialization and the border effect puzzle," Working Papers 05-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:feemei:256059. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.