IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331085.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Dynamic Recursive Analysis of A Carbon Tax Including Local Health Feedback

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Jennifer Chung-I

Abstract

An ancillary benefit of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation refers to a benefit derived from GHG mitigation that is in addition to the reduction in adverse impacts of global climate change. One type of ancillary benefit of GHG mitigation is reduced local air toxics, which is associated with improved health. Middle-income countries, as defined by the World Bank, like Thailand are in a unique position to obtain large ancillary health gains from reduced local air toxics when GHG is mitigated by curbing fossil fuel consumption. The author assesses whether by capturing the local health effects of reduced air toxics as an ancillary effect of GHG mitigation, and by allowing this benefit to feed back into the economy, the desirability of policies aimed at GHG mitigation will change, from the standpoint of macroeconomic and welfare indicators. The author uses a multi-period comprehensive cost/benefit framework - a Dynamic Recursive Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model - for the assessment. A health effects sub-model takes the PM10 emissions (volume) information from the CGE model to assess the implications for ambient PM10 concentration, local health, labor supply and medical expenditures. The saved labor is exogenously fed back to the CGE model to find the economy-wide repercussions whereas the adjustment of medical expenditures due to improved environmental quality is endogenized in the model. To illustrate this methodology, the methodology is applied to the country of Thailand, a middle-income country, for the period of 1998-2010. The base year was calibrated to a 1998 Social Accounting Matrix originally obtained from the Thai Development Research Institute. Findings include: (1) average GDP growth with the carbon tax relative to the no policy scenario turns positive when the health feedback is included, and (2) the welfare of households with the carbon tax relative to the no policy scenario improve by a factor of two when health feedback in incorporated. An extensive sensitivity analysis over these results was then carried out, using upper and lower bound values instead of the central or default values for 11 key parameters. A tornado diagram was used to identify the parameters whose uncertainties influence key results the most. Three parameters were identified as the most influential parameters - the distribution of source term contributions to ambient PM10 (KCOEFF), the capital-to-output ratio (KSCALE), and the elasticity of substitution for top level CES production technology (AGGINP). The key results corresponding with alternative assumptions about these three parameters were then evaluated more closely. Under three alternative scenarios - low bound KCOEFF, low bound KSCALE, and high bound AGGINP - the key results or findings alluded to earlier no longer hold. Although the author does not have the information about the probability distributions of the occurrence of alternative values for these parameters, she assesses the likelihoods of these alternative values’ being closer to reality than their default values.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Jennifer Chung-I, 2003. "A Dynamic Recursive Analysis of A Carbon Tax Including Local Health Feedback," Conference papers 331085, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331085/files/992.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diao, Xinshen & Somwaru, Agapi, 2000. "An Inquiry on General Equilibrium Effects of MERCOSUR--An Intertemporal World Model," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 557-588, September.
    2. Lewis, Jeffrey D. & Robinson, Sherman & Wang, Zhi, 1995. "Beyond the Uruguay Round: The implications of an Asian free trade area," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 35-90.
    3. Harris, Richard, 1984. "Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of Small Open Economies with Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1016-1032, December.
    4. Drusilla K. Brown & Alan V. Deardorff & Robert M. Stern, 2011. "A North American Free Trade Agreement: Analytical Issues and a Computational Assessment," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert M Stern (ed.), Comparative Advantage, Growth, And The Gains From Trade And Globalization A Festschrift in Honor of Alan V Deardorff, chapter 40, pages 557-575, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Robert Devlin & Ricardo Ffrench‐Davis, 1999. "Towards an Evaluation of Regional Integration in Latin America in the 1990s," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 261-290, March.
    6. Roberts John M., 2001. "Estimates of the Productivity Trend Using Time-Varying Parameter Techniques," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-32, July.
    7. Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade liberalisation and regional integration: the search for large numbers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1-20.
    8. Baldwin, Richard E. & Venables, Anthony J., 1995. "Regional economic integration," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1597-1644, Elsevier.
    9. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutherford, Thomas F. & Tarr, David G., 1997. "Trade policy options for Chile : a quantitative evaluation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1783, The World Bank.
    10. Burfisher, Mary & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 1992. "Agricultural and food policies in a United States-Mexico free trade area," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 117-139.
    11. Mauricio Mesquita Moreira & Sheila Najberg, 2000. "Trade liberalisation in Brazil: Creating or exporting jobs?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 78-99.
    12. Diao, Xinshen & Elbehri, Aziz & Gehlhar, Mark J. & Gibson, Paul R. & Leetmaa, Susan E. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Nelson, Frederick J. & Nimon, R. Wesley & Normile, Mary Anne & Roe, Terry L. & Shapouri, S, 2001. "Agricultural Policy Reform In The Wto: The Road Ahead," Agricultural Economic Reports 34015, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Norman, Victor D., 1990. "Assessing trade and welfare effects of trade liberalization : A comparison of alternative approaches to CGE modelling with imperfect competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 725-745, June.
    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. Elbehri, Aziz & MacDonald, Steve, 2003. "Transgenic Cotton and Crop Productivity: A General Equilibrium Analysis for West and Central Africa," Conference papers 331153, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 2002. "Trade liberalisation and regional integration: the search for large numbers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1-20.
    3. Willenbockel, Dirk, 2004. "Specification choice and robustness in CGE trade policy analysis with imperfect competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 1065-1099, December.
    4. Alpay, Savas, 2003. "How Can Trade Liberalization Be Conducive to a Better Environment?," Conference papers 331113, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Lee, Hiro, 2001. "General equilibrium evaluation of Japan-Singapore free trade agreement," MPRA Paper 82605, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Susanto, Dwi & Rosson, C. Parr & Adcock, Flynn J., 2007. "Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the North American Free Trade Agreement: The Case of the Agricultural Sector," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 121-134, April.
    7. Francois, Joseph & Manchin, Miriam & Martin, Will, 2013. "Market Structure in Multisector General Equilibrium Models of Open Economies," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, in: Peter B. Dixon & Dale Jorgenson (ed.), Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 1571-1600, Elsevier.
    8. Lewis, Jeffrey D. & Robinson, Sherman & Thierfelder, Karen, 1999. "After the negotiations: assessing the impact of free trade agreements in Southern Africa," TMD discussion papers 46, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Wang, Zhi & Gehlhar, Mark & Yao, Shunli, 2006. "Estimating Hong Kong Re-export Markups and Reconciling Trade Statistics from China, Hong Kong and Their Major Trading Partners - A Mathematical Programming Approach," Conference papers 331486, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Lee, Hiro & Roland-Holst, David & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2002. "Emergent trilateralism in the Pacific Basin: How should China, Japan, and the United States respond to regional trade initiatives?," MPRA Paper 82606, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Jayatilleke S. Bandara & Wusheng Yu, 2007. "Agricultural trade liberalization in the Asia-Pacific region with specific reference to preferential trade agreements - scenario and impact analysis," STUDIES IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT, in: Studies in Trade and Investment - AGRICULTURAL TRADE - PLANTING THE SEEDS OF REGIONAL LIBERALIZATION IN ASIA, volume 60, pages 131-162, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    12. Lee, Hiro & Roland-Holst, David & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2004. "China's emergence in East Asia under alternative trading arrangements," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 697-712, August.
    13. Ballard, Charles L. & Cheong, Inkyo, 1997. "The effects of economic integration in the Pacific Rim: A computational general equilibrium analysis," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 505-524.
    14. Ibarra-Yunez, Alejandro, 2003. "Spaghetti regionalism or strategic foreign trade: some evidence for Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 567-584, December.
    15. Costinot, Arnaud & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2014. "Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 197-261, Elsevier.
    16. Kouparitsas, Michael A., 2001. "Should trade barriers be phased-out slowly? A case study of North America," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 875-900, November.
    17. M. Ayhan Kose & Guy M. Meredith & Christopher M. Towe, 2005. "How Has NAFTA Affected the Mexican Economy? Review and Evidence," Springer Books, in: Rolf J. Langhammer & Lúcio Vinhas Souza (ed.), Monetary Policy and Macroeconomic Stabilization in Latin America, pages 35-81, Springer.
    18. A. Ganesh Kumar & Gordhan Kumar Saini, 2007. "Economic co-operation in South Asia: The Dilemma of SAFTA and beyond," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2007-017, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    19. Francois, Joseph, 1998. "Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition in the GTAP Model," GTAP Technical Papers 317, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    20. Hejazi, Walid & Safarian, A.E., 2005. "NAFTA effects and the level of development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(12), pages 1741-1749, December.

    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:pugtwp:331085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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/gtpurus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.