Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:45:20.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, EDUCATION AND GROWTH: A REAPPRAISAL WHEN LIFETIME IS FINITE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

Xavier Pautrel*
Affiliation:
University of Nantes (LEMNA)
*
Address correspondence to: Xavier Pautrel, LEMNA, Chemin de la Censive du Tertre, B.P. 52231, Nantes Cedex 3, France; e-mail: xavier.pautrel@univ-nantes.fr.

Abstract

When finite lifetime is introduced in a Lucas [Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1988), 3–42] growth model where the source of pollution is physical capital, the environmental policy may enhance the growth rate of a market economy, whereas pollution does not influence educational activities, labor supply is not elastic, and human capital does not enter the utility function. The result arises from the generational turnover effect due to finite lifetime and it remains valid under conditions when the education sector uses final output as well as time to accumulate human capital. This article also demonstrates that ageing reduces the positive influence of environmental policy when growth is driven by human capital accumulation à la Lucas in the overlapping-generations model of Yaari [Review of Economic Studies 32 (1965), 137–150] and Blanchard [Journal of Political Economy 93 (1985), 223–247].

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barro, R. and Martin, X. Sala-i (1995) Economic Growth. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
Blanchard, O. and Fisher, S. (1989) Lectures on Macroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blanchard, O.J. (1985) Debt, deficits, and finite horizons. Journal of Political Economy 93 (2), 223247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A.L. and de Mooij, R.A. (1997) Environmental tax reform and endogenous growth. Journal of Public Economics 63 (2), 207237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A.L. and Heijdra, B.J. (1998) Environmental tax policy and intergenerational distribution. Journal of Public Economics 67 (1), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A.L. and Heijdra, B.J. (2002) Environmental abatement and intergenerational distribution. Environmental and Resource Economics 23 (1), 4584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A.L. and Smulders, S. (1995) Environmental quality and pollution-augmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model. Journal of Public Economics 57 (3), 369391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, A.L. and Smulders, S.A. (1996) Transitional impacts of environmental policy in an endogenous growth model. International Economic Review 37 (4), 861893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, W. and Taylor, M. (2005) Economic growth and the environment: A review of theory and empirics. In Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 17491821. Elsevier, North- Holland.Google Scholar
Gradus, R. and Smulders, S. (1993) The trade-off between environmental care and long-term growth-pollution in three prototype growth models. Journal of Economics 58 (1), 2551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimaud, A. and Rougé, L. (2005) Polluting non-renewable resources, innovation and growth: Welfare and environmental policy. Resource and Energy Economics 27 (2), 109129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimaud, A. and L., Rougé (2008) Environment, directed technical change and economic policy. Environmental and Resource Economics 41 (4), 439463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimaud, A. and Tournemaine, F. (2007) Why can environmental policy tax promote growth through the channel of education? Ecological Economics 62 (1), 2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heijdra, B.J. and Ligthart, J.E. (2000) The dynamic macroeconomic effects of tax policy in an overlapping generations model. Oxford Economic Papers 52 (4), 677701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettich, F. (1998) Growth effects of a revenue-neutral environmental tax reform. Journal of Economics 67 (3), 287316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Robert E. (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1), 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, C. and Sala-i Martin, X. (1991) A Note on the Time-Elimination Methods for Solving Recursive Dynamic Economic Models. Technical working paper 116, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, C.B. and Sala-i Martin, X. (1993) Transitional dynamics in two-sector models of endogenous growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3), 739773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. (2002) The effects of emission permits on growth and the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 21 (1), 7587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, T. (2003) Environmental tax policy in a model of growth cycles. Economic Theory 22 (1), 141168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pautrel, X. (2008) Environmental Policy, Education and Growth: A Reappraisal When Lifetime Is Finite. Working paper 57.08, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schou, P. (2000) Polluting non-renewable resources and growth. Environmental and Resource Economics 16 (2), 211227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schou, P. (2002) When environmental policy is superfluous: Growth and polluting resources. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 104 (4), 605620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, E.Y. (2002) Taxation, human capital and growth. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 26 (2), 205216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ewijk, C. and van Wijnbergen, S. (1995) Can abatement overcome the conflict between environment and economic growth? De Economist 143 (2), 197216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (1993) East-Asian Miracle : Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York: World Bank.Google Scholar
Xepapadeas, A., Mäler, K.-G., and Vincent, J. R. (2005) Economic Growth and the Environment, Vol. 3, pp. 12191271. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Yaari, M. (1965) Uncertain lifetime, life insurance, and the theory of the consumer. Review of Economic Studies 32, 137150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar