Economic Models - Convex Optimization
Economic Models - Convex Optimization Economic Models - Convex Optimization
Topic 2 Cheap-Talk Multiple Equilibria and Pareto — Improvement in an Environmental Taxation Games Chirstophe Deissenberg UniversitédelaMéditerranée and GREQAM, France Pavel Ševčík Universilé de Montréal, Canada 1. Introduction The use of taxes as regulatory instrument in environmental economics is a classic topic. In a nutshell, the need for regulation usually arises because producing causes detrimental emissions. Due to the lack of a proper market, the firms do not internalize the impact of these emissions on the utility of other agents. Thus, they take their decisions on the basis of prices that do not reflect the true social costs of their production. Taxes can be used to modify the prices, confronting the firms so that the socially desirable decisions are taken. The problem has been exhaustively investigated in static settings, where there is no room for strategic interaction between the regulator and the firms. Consider, however, the following situations: (1) The emission taxes have a dual effect, they incite the firms to reduce production and to undertake investments in abatement technology. This is typically the case, when the emissions are increasing in the output and decreasing in the abatement technology; (2) Emission reduction is socially desirable. The reduction of production is not and (3) The investments are irreversible. In this case, the regulator must find an optimal compromise between implementing high taxes to motivate high investments, and keeping the taxes low to encourage production. 101
102 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pavel Ševčík The fact that the investments are irreversible introduces a strategic element in the problem. If the firms are naïve and believe his announcements, the regulatory can insure high production and important investments by first declaring high taxes and reducing them, once the corresponding investments have been realized. More sophisticated firms, however, recognize that the initially high taxes will not be implemented, and are reluctant to invest in the first place. In other words, one is confronted with a typical time inconsistency problem, which has been extensively treated in the monetary policy literature following Kydland and Prescott (1977) and Barro and Gordon (1983). In environmental economics, the time inconsistency problem has received yet only limited attention, although it frequently occurs. See among others Gersbach and Glazer (1999) for a number of examples and for an interesting model, see Abrego and Perroni (1999); Batabyal (1996a;b); Dijkstra (2002); Marsiliani and Renstrom (2000) and Petrakis and Xepapadeas (2003). The time inconsistency is directly related to the fact that the situation described above, defines a Stackelberg game between the regulator (the leader) and the firms (the followers). As noted in the seminal work of Simaan and Cruz (1973a;b), inconsistency arises because the Stackelberg equilibrium is not defined by mutual best responses. It implies that the follower uses a best response in reaction to the leader’s action, but not that the leader’s actions is itself a best response to the follower’s. This opens the door to a re-optimization by the leader once the follower has played. Thus, a regulator, who announces that it will implement the Stackelberg solution, is not credible. An usual conclusion is that, in the absence of additional mechanisms, the economy is doomed to converge towards the less desirable Nash solution. A number of options to insure credible solutions have been considered in the literature — credible binding commitments by the Stackelberg leader, reputation building, use of trigger strategies by the followers, etc. (see McCallum (1997), for a review in a monetary policy context). Schematically, these solutions aim at assuring the time consistency of Stackelberg solution with either the regulator or the firms as a leader. Usually, these solutions are not efficient and can be Pareto-improved. In Dawid et al. (2005), we demonstrated the usefulness of a new solution to the time inconsistency problem in environmental policy. We showed that tax announcements, that are not respected, can increase the payoff not only of the regulator, but also of all firms, if these include any number of naïve believers who take the announcements at face value. Moreover, if firms tend to adopt the behavior of the most successful ones, a unique
- Page 73 and 74: 50 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 75 and 76: 52 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 77 and 78: 54 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 79 and 80: 56 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 81 and 82: 58 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 83 and 84: 60 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 85 and 86: 62 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 87 and 88: 64 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 89 and 90: 66 Dipak R. Basu and Alexis Lazarid
- Page 91 and 92: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 93 and 94: 70 Andrew Hughes Hallet have, there
- Page 95 and 96: 72 Andrew Hughes Hallet other. The
- Page 97 and 98: 74 Andrew Hughes Hallet success in
- Page 99 and 100: 76 Andrew Hughes Hallet with a hori
- Page 101 and 102: 78 Andrew Hughes Hallet control inf
- Page 103 and 104: 80 Andrew Hughes Hallet Table 2. Fi
- Page 105 and 106: 82 Andrew Hughes Hallet country 13
- Page 107 and 108: 84 Andrew Hughes Hallet Given this
- Page 109 and 110: 86 Andrew Hughes Hallet 5.4. Instit
- Page 111 and 112: 88 Andrew Hughes Hallet Substitutin
- Page 113 and 114: 90 Andrew Hughes Hallet This is alw
- Page 115 and 116: 92 Andrew Hughes Hallet (d) Since E
- Page 117 and 118: 94 Andrew Hughes Hallet Table 3. Ex
- Page 119 and 120: 96 Andrew Hughes Hallet restraint m
- Page 121 and 122: 98 Andrew Hughes Hallet HM Treasury
- Page 123: 100 Andrew Hughes Hallet γ/(β −
- Page 127 and 128: 104 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 129 and 130: 106 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 131 and 132: 108 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 133 and 134: 110 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 135 and 136: 112 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 137 and 138: 114 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 139 and 140: 116 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 141 and 142: 118 Chirstophe Deissenberg and Pave
- Page 143 and 144: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 145 and 146: 122 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis 2. Mo
- Page 147 and 148: 124 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis GRAI
- Page 149 and 150: 126 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis (3) U
- Page 151 and 152: 128 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis The m
- Page 153 and 154: 130 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis lower
- Page 155 and 156: 132 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis Some
- Page 157 and 158: 134 Nikitas Spiros Koutsoukis We be
- Page 159 and 160: This page intentionally left blank
- Page 161 and 162: 138 Victoria Miroshnik 2. Corporate
- Page 163 and 164: 140 Victoria Miroshnik Japanese NC
- Page 165 and 166: 142 Victoria Miroshnik process shou
- Page 167 and 168: 144 Victoria Miroshnik National cul
- Page 169 and 170: 146 Victoria Miroshnik A1 A2 A3 D1
- Page 171 and 172: 148 Victoria Miroshnik Fujino, T (1
- Page 173 and 174: This page intentionally left blank
Topic 2<br />
Cheap-Talk Multiple Equilibria and Pareto —<br />
Improvement in an Environmental<br />
Taxation Games<br />
Chirstophe Deissenberg<br />
UniversitédelaMéditerranée and GREQAM, France<br />
Pavel Ševčík<br />
Universilé de Montréal, Canada<br />
1. Introduction<br />
The use of taxes as regulatory instrument in environmental economics is a<br />
classic topic. In a nutshell, the need for regulation usually arises because<br />
producing causes detrimental emissions. Due to the lack of a proper market,<br />
the firms do not internalize the impact of these emissions on the utility of<br />
other agents. Thus, they take their decisions on the basis of prices that do not<br />
reflect the true social costs of their production. Taxes can be used to modify<br />
the prices, confronting the firms so that the socially desirable decisions are<br />
taken. The problem has been exhaustively investigated in static settings,<br />
where there is no room for strategic interaction between the regulator and<br />
the firms.<br />
Consider, however, the following situations:<br />
(1) The emission taxes have a dual effect, they incite the firms to reduce<br />
production and to undertake investments in abatement technology. This<br />
is typically the case, when the emissions are increasing in the output<br />
and decreasing in the abatement technology;<br />
(2) Emission reduction is socially desirable. The reduction of production<br />
is not and<br />
(3) The investments are irreversible. In this case, the regulator must find<br />
an optimal compromise between implementing high taxes to motivate<br />
high investments, and keeping the taxes low to encourage production.<br />
101