Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:50:57.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

La consommation de ressources environnementales en incertitude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Alain Ayong Le Kama
Alain Ayong Le Kama*
Affiliation:
Université de Grenoble 2, Commissariat général du Plan et EUREQua, Université de Paris I
Get access

Résumé

Cet article présente un modèle dans lequel un individu représentatif consomme une unique ressource environnementale, que l'on suppose renouvelable. Nous supposons, par ailleurs, qu'il existe un ensemble de phénomènes naturels aléatoires susceptibles d'affecter le stock de ressource disponible pour la consommation. Nous analysons à l'aide de ce modèle les comportements de consommation face à une incertitude sur la disponibilité d'une ressource environnementale dans le futur. Notre objectif étant de dépasser les résultats, somme toute triviaux, qui font l'essentiel de la littérature sur la décision en incertitude, et qui consistent à remarquer qu'en présence d'incertitude, l'agent adopte généralement un comportement plus prudent quant à son usage de l'environnement que dans le cas où l'incertitude n'existerait pas.

Nous montrons d'une part comment la prise en compte successive des contraintes physiques, de disponibilité de la ressource et de solvabilité (ou de survie), auxquelles font face les consommateurs, modifie fondamentalement leur comportement, relativement à l'hypothèse de cycle de vie. Et, d'autre part pourquoi leur omission, ce qui est généralement le cas dans la littérature, peut amener à des conclusions éronées.

Summary

Summary

Our intention is to present a model in which a representative agent consumes a single environmental resource which we assume to have its own regeneration process. We also assume that there exists stochastic natural phenomena that affect the available resource stock. In the context of this model, we go further on the analyze of the implications on consumption behaviors in the presence of uncertainty on future values of an environmental resource stock.

It is shown that the presence of physical constraints significantly affects the consumer behavior, relative to the life cycle hypothesis, in the sense of a greater preservation of the resource. It is also shown how the successive introduction of both constraints in the consumer's program modifies his behavior and how omitting them, as generally the case in the literature, may drive to erroneous conclusions.

Keywords

Choix intertemporels de consommationincertituderessources renouvelablesD81D91Q2consumptionenvironmentuncertaintyD81D91Q2
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , 2004 , pp. 255 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2004 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Adresse: EUREQua, Université de Paris I, Maison des Sciences Economiques, 106-112 bd de I'Hôpital 75647 Paris cedex 13. e-mail: adayong@univ-paris1.fr

Je remercie A. d'Autume, pour les nombreuses discussions qui ont servi de base à ce travail, ainsi que F. Collard, J.-P. Drugeon, K. Schubert, B. Wignolle et tout particulièrement J.M. Tallon, pour leurs précieux commentaires sur les versions préliminaires de cet article. Je remercie également les deux rapporteurs de cette revue dont les remarques m'ont permis d'améliorer considérablement cet article. Je reste néanmoins seul responsable d'éventuelles erreurs ou omissions.

References

Ayong Le kama, A., (2001a), “Preservation and Exogenous Uncertain Future Preferences”, Econmic Theory, 18, pp. 745–752.Google Scholar
Ayong Le kama, A., (2001b), “Sustainable Growth, Renewable Resources and Pollution”, Journal of Economics Dynamics and Control, 25, pp. 1911–1918.Google Scholar
Ayong Le kama, A., et Schubert, K. (2003a), “Growth, Environment and Uncertain Future Preferences, Environmental and Resources Economics”, Vol. 28, 1, pp. 31–53.Google Scholar
Ayong Le kama, A., et Schubert, K. (2003b), “The Consequences of an Endogenous Discounting depending on Environmental Quality”, Working paper, EUREQua – Université de Paris I, Paris.Google Scholar
Baranzini, A., et Bourguignon, F. (1994), “Is Sustainable Growth Optimal?”, Nota di Lavoro 60.94, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Milan.Google Scholar
Beltratti, A., Chichilnisky, G. et Heal, G. (1998), “Uncertain Future Preferences and Conservation”, in Chichilnisky, G., Heal, G. et Vercelli, A. (eds.), Sustainability : Dynamics and Uncertainty, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Milan.Google Scholar
Daly, H., (1991), Steady State Economics, 2nd edition, Island Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
d’Autume, A., (1994), “Le comportement de consommation”, manuscript, MAD – Université de Paris I, Paris.Google Scholar
d’Autume, A., et Michel, P. (1993), “Endogenous growth in Arrow’s Learning by Doing model”, European Economic Review, 37, pp. 1175–1184.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. (1991), “Saving and Liquidity Contraints”, Econometrica, 59, pp. 1221–1248.Google Scholar
Deaton, A., (1992), Understanding Consumption, Clarendon Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Deaton, A., et Laroque, F. (1990), “On the behavior of Commodity Prices”, NBER Working Paper.Google Scholar
Epaulard, A., et Pommeret, A. (1998), «Gestion et valorisation des ressources non renouvelables en incertitude», in Schubert, K. et Zagamé, P. (éds.), L’environnement : une nouvelle dimension de l’analyse économique, Vuibert, pp. 269–314.Google Scholar
Flaving, M., (1981), “The Adjustment of Consumption to Changing Ex-petations about Future Income”, Journal of Political Economy, 89, pp. 974–1009.Google Scholar
Friedman, M., (1957), A Theory of the Consumption Function, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Hall, R. (1978), “Stochastic Implications of Life Cycle – Permanent Income Hypothesis : Theory and Evidence”, Journal of Political Economy, 86, pp. 971–987.Google Scholar
Hall, R., et Mishkin, F. (1992), “The sensitivity of consumption to transitory income : estimates from panel data on households”, Econometrica, 50, pp. 461–481.Google Scholar
Hansen, L., et Singleton, K. (1983), “Stochastic Consumption, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Asset Returns”, Journal of Political Economy, 91, pp. 249–265.Google Scholar
Heal, G., (1998), Valuing the Future ; Economic Theory and Sustainability, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, M., (1990), “Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large”, Econometrica, 58, pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
Modigliani, F., et Brumberg, R. (1954), “Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function : an Interpretation of Cross-section Data”, Kurihara, K. (edn), Rutgers University Press, pp. 388–436.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R., (1984), “Uncertainty in the theory of renewable resources markets”, Review of Economic Studies, 51, pp. 289–303.Google Scholar
Plourde, C., et Yeung, D. (1989), “A model of industrial pollution in a stochastic environment”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 16, pp. 97–105.Google Scholar
Romer, D., (1996), Advanced Macroeconomics, McGraw-Hill, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B., (1964), “Collective Consumption Services of Individualized Consumption Goods”, Quaterly Journal of Economics, 78, pp. 471–477.Google Scholar
Zeldes, S., (1989a), “Consumption and Liquidity Contraints : An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Political Economy, 97, pp. 305–346.Google Scholar
Zeldes, S., (1989b), “Optimal Cosumption with Stochastic Income : Deviation from the Certainty Equivalence”, Quaterly Journal of Economics, 104, pp. 275–298.Google Scholar