IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sur/seedps/121.html

Asymmetric Price Responses and the Underlying Energy Demand Trend: Are they Substitutes or Complements? Evidence from Modelling OECD Aggregate Energy Demand

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Olutomi I Adeyemi & David C Broadstock & Mona Chitnis & Lester C Hunt & Guy Judge, 2008. "Asymmetric Price Responses and the Underlying Energy Demand Trend: Are they Substitutes or Complements? Evidence from Modelling OECD Aggregate Energy Demand," Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC), School of Economics Discussion Papers (SEEDS) 121, Surrey Energy Economics Centre (SEEC), School of Economics, University of Surrey.
  • Handle: RePEc:sur:seedps:121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.som.surrey.ac.uk/seeds/SEEDS121.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • Q41 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Demand and Supply; Prices

    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:sur:seedps:121. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Mona Chitnis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eesuruk.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.