Al-Amin, Abul Quasem and Abdul Hamid, Jaafar and Chamhuri, Siwar (2008): Macroeconomic effects of carbon dioxide emission reduction: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Malaysia.
Download (142kB) | Preview
This study analyzes the macroeconomic effects of limiting carbon emissions using computable general equilibrium (CGE) model in the Malaysian economy. Doing so, we developed an environmental computable general equilibrium model and investigate carbon tax policy responses in the economy applying exogenously different degrees of carbon tax into the model. Three simulations were carried out using a Malaysian Social Accounting Matrix. The carbon tax policy illustrates that a 1.21% reduction of carbon emission reduces the nominal GDP by 0.82% and exports by 2.08%; a 2.34% reduction of carbon emission reduces the nominal GDP by 1.90% and exports by 3.97%and a 3.40% reduction of carbon emission reduces the nominal GDP by 3.17% and exports by 5.71%. Imposition of successively higher carbon tax results in increased government revenue from baseline by 26.67%, 53.07% and 79.28% respectively. However, fixed capital investment increased in scenario 1a (1st) by 0.43% but decreased in scenarios 1b (2nd) and 1c (3rd) by 0.26% and 1.79% respectively from the baseline. According to our findings policy-makes should consider initial (1st) carbon tax policy. This policy results in achieving reasonably good environmental impacts without losing the investment, fixed capital investment, investment share of nominal GDP and government revenue.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Macroeconomic effects of carbon dioxide emission reduction: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Malaysia|
|Keywords:||Emission; Environmental General Equilibrium; Malaysian Economy|
|Subjects:||C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling > C68 - Computable General Equilibrium Models
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q56 - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925 > B22 - Macroeconomics
|Depositing User:||Quasem Al-Amin|
|Date Deposited:||12. May 2008 05:28|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 19:54|
Antweiler, Werner; Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor. 2001. Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? American Economic Review. 91(4): 877–908.
Beghin C. J., Roland-Holst, D. & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. 2005. Trade and the Environment in General Equilibrium: Evidence from Developing Economies. Beghin, John; Roland-Holst, David; Van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique (Eds.). Springer.
Beghin, C. J., Sebastien, D., Roland-Holst, D. & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. 1997. The Trade and Environment Nexus in Mexican Agriculture. A General Equilibrium Analysis. Agricultural Economics. 17(2-3): 115-31.
Beghin, C. J., Roland-Holst, D. & Van der Mensbrugghe, D. 1994. Trade Liberalization and the Environment in the Pacific Basin: Coordinated Approaches to Mexican Trade and Environmental Policy. OECD paper.
Bergman, L. 1993. General Equilibrium Costs and Benefits of Environmental Policies:Some Preliminary Results Based on Swedish Data. Memo.
Blitzer, C.R., Eckaus, R., Lahiri,S. & Meerhaus, A. 1992. Growth and Welfare Losses from Carbon Emissions Restrictions: A General Equilibrium Analysis for Egypt. Working Paper, Center for Energy Policy Research, MIT.
Bullard, Clark W. & Herendeen, Robert A. 1975. The energy cost of goods and services. Energy Policy. 3 (4): 268-278.
Copeland, B. R. & Taylor, M.S. 1994 North-South Trade and the Environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109: 755-787
Dervis, K., de Melo, J. & Robinson, S. 1982. General Equilibrium Models for Development Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DOE. 2001. Environmental Quality Report 2000.Ministry of Science technology and the environment. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
DOS. 2005. Input-Output Table of Malaysia-2000, Department of Statistics, Malaysia.
DOS. 1999. Economic Report, Various Issues. Ministry of Finance, Department of Statistics, Malaysia.
Fisher-Vanden, K. & Ian Wing, S. 2007. Accounting for quality: Issues with modeling the impact of R&D on economic growth and carbon emissions in developing economies. Energy Economics. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2007.04.002.
Forsund, F. R. & Strom, S. 1988. Environmental Economics and Management: Pollution and Natural Resources. London: Croon Helm.
Han, Xiaoli & Lakshmanan, T.K. 1994. Structural Changes and Energy Consumption in the Japanese Economy 1975-85: An Input-Output Analysis. Energy Journal. 15(3): 165-188.
Jorgenson, D.W. & Wilcoxen, P. J. 1990. Intertemporal General Equilibrium Modeling of U.S. Environmental Regulation. Journal of Policy Modeling. 12: 715–744.
Lee, H. & Roland-Holst, D. 1993. International Trade and the Transfer of Environmental Costs and Benefits. OECD Development Centre Technical Papers, No. 91, Paris.
Matthew A. Cole & Robert J. R. Elliott. 2005. FDI and the Capital Intensity of ‘Dirty’ Sectors: A Missing Piece of the Pollution haven Puzzle. Review of Development Economics. 9(4): 530-548.
Matthew A. Cole & Robert J.R. Elliott. 2003. Determining the trade–environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 46:363–383.
MDP. 2006. Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
MDP. 2003. Eighth Malaysia Plan. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Munksgaard, J. & K.A. Pedersen. 2001. CO2 Accounts for Open Economies: Producer or Consumer Responsibility? Energy Policy. 29(4): 327-335.
Levinson, Arik & M. Scot Taylor. 2004. Trade and Environment: Unmasking the pollution Haven Effect. NBER working paper no. W10629.
Perroni, C. & Wigle, R. M.1994. International trade and environmental quality: how important the linkages? Canadian Journal of Economics. 27 (3): 551–567.
Reinert, K.A. & Roland-Holst D.W. 2001. NAFTA and Industrial Pollution: Some General Equilibrium Results. Journal of Economic Integration. 16(2): 165-79.
Robinson, S., Yunez-Naude, A., Hinojosa-Ojeda, R., Lewis.D. J. & Devarjan, S. 1999. From Stylized to applied models: Building multisector CGE models for policy analysis. North American Journal of Economics and Finance. 10: 5-38.
Robinson, S., Subramanian, S. & Geoghegan, J. 1993. Modeling Air Pollution Abatement in a Market Based Incentive Framework for the Los Angeles Basin (unpublished paper).
Robinson, S. 1990. Pollution, Market Failure, and Optimal Policy in an Economy-wide Framework. Working Paper no. 559, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Berkeley: University of California.
Stephenson, J. & Saha, G.P. 1980. Energy balance of trade in New Zealand. Energy Systems and Policy. 4(4): 317-326.
Strout, Alan M. 1985. Energy-intensive materials and the developing countries. Materials and Society. 9(3): 281-330.
Wier, Mette. 1998. Sources of changes in emissions from energy: a structural decomposition analysis. Economic Systems Research. 10(2): 99-112.