IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Removing policy based comparative advantage for energy intensive production. Necessary adjustments of the real exchange rate and industry structure

National and international expansion of transmission networks and diminishing returns to scale in hydropower capacity expansion has raised the opportunity cost of electricity. The resulting changes in comparative advantage between industries have in many countries been counteracted by government assistance to energy intensive industries. A good example is the implicit electricity price subsidies offered to energy intensive manufacturing in Norway through the state owned power company Statkraft. We use firm data to assess the share of firms that will survive in the long run when these subsidies are removed, highlighting that large cost heterogeneity within the industries may imply diminishing returns to scale at the industry level. This feature is incorporated in a multisectoral CGE model, which is used to estimate the equilibrium adjustments of the industry structure and relative prices of removing the subsidies. Such a policy will lead to a less specialised industry structure and reduces gross trade. The positive public budget effect allows the government to cut other taxes, which fuels the real exchange rate depreciation necessary to meet the national budget constraint.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Statistics Norway, Research Department in its series Discussion Papers with number 462.

in new window

Date of creation: Jul 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:462
Contact details of provider: Postal: P.O.Box 8131 Dep, N-0033 Oslo, Norway
Phone: (+47) 21 09 00 00
Fax: (+47) 21 09 49 73
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen, 2004. "Why Some Firms Export," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(2), pages 561-569, May.
  2. Bernard, A., 1997. "Exceptional Exporter Performance: Cause, Effect, or Both?," Working papers 97-21, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  3. Timothy J. Kehoe, 2003. "An Evaluation of the Performance of Applied General Equilibrium Models of the Impact of NAFTA," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000525, David K. Levine.
  4. Joel Popkin & Kathryn Kobe, 2003. "Securing America's Future," Challenge, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 46(6), pages 62-109, January.
  5. Mark J. Melitz, 2002. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," NBER Working Papers 8881, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Ben J. Heijdra & Christian Keuschnigg & Wilhelm Kohler, 2002. "Eastern Enlargement of the EU: Jobs, Investment and Welfare in Present Member Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 718, CESifo Group Munich.
  7. Erling Holmøy & Torbjørn Hægeland, 1997. "Aggregate Productivity Effects of Technology Shocks in a Model of Heterogeneous Firms: The Importance of Equilibrium Adjustments," Discussion Papers 198, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
  8. Anthony J. Venables, 1993. "Equilibrium Locations of Vertically Linked Industries," CEP Discussion Papers dp0137, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  9. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2000. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," Boston University - Institute for Economic Development 105, Boston University, Institute for Economic Development.
  10. Andrew Bernard & Joachim Wagner, 2001. "Export entry and exit by German firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 105-123, March.
  11. Ghironi, Fabio & Melitz, Marc J, 2004. "International Trade and Macroeconomic Dynamics with Heteroegenous Firms," CEPR Discussion Papers 4595, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  12. Matsen, Egil & Torvik, Ragnar, 2005. "Optimal Dutch disease," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 494-515, December.
  13. Ricardo Hausmann & Dani Rodrik, 2002. "Economic Development as Self-Discovery," NBER Working Papers 8952, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Wilhelm Kohler & Christian Keuschnigg, 2000. "An incumbent country view on eastern enlargement of the EU Part II: The Austrian case," Economics working papers 2000-26, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
  15. Paul Krugman, 1990. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," NBER Working Papers 3275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. A. Bovenberg, 1999. "Green Tax Reforms and the Double Dividend: an Updated Reader's Guide," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 421-443, August.
  17. Adam Hersh & Christian Weller, 2003. "Does Manufacturing Matter?," Challenge, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 46(2), pages 59-79, March.
  18. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew M. Warner, 1995. "Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 5398, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. J. Francois & H. van Meijl & F. van Tongeren, 2003. "Trade Liberalization and Developing Countries under the Doha Round," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-060/2, Tinbergen Institute, revised 30 Aug 2003.
  20. repec:rus:hseeco:122439 is not listed on IDEAS
  21. Klette, Tor Jakob, 1999. "Market Power, Scale Economies and Productivity: Estimates from a Panel of Establishment Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 451-76, December.
  22. Wilhelm Kohler & Christian Keuschnigg, 2000. "An incumbent country view on eastern enlargement of the EU Part I: A general treatment," Economics working papers 2000-25, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
  23. Aw, Bee Yan & Chung, Sukkyun & Roberts, Mark J, 2000. "Productivity and Turnover in the Export Market: Micro-level Evidence from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (China)," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 14(1), pages 65-90, January.
  24. Tor Jakob Klette & Arvid Raknerud, 2005. "Heterogeneity, productivity and selection: an empirical study of Norwegian manufacturing firms," Discussion Papers 401, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
  25. repec:oup:qjecon:v:120:y:2005:i:3:p:865-915 is not listed on IDEAS
  26. Torvik, Ragnar, 2001. "Learning by doing and the Dutch disease," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 285-306, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

  1. Technology Assessment

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:462. 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: (J Bruusgaard)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.