A comment on innovation in "The environment and directed technical change"

Anthony Wiskich

CAMA Working Papers from Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University

Abstract: The framework used to endogenise technology growth by Acemoglu, Aghion, Bursztyn, and Hemous (2012), hereafter AABH, allows the existence of unstable equilibria and does not provide a rationale for specifying which equilibrium should apply when more than one exists. This paper: (i) suggests a rationale for choosing one corner solution used in AABH that constitutes a lower bound for the subsidy or tax required to direct clean research; (ii) argues against use of the other corner solution; and (iii) provides an alternative equilibrium that constitutes an upper bound to the policy required. The alternative methods can produce substantially different results when the elasticity of substitution between clean and dirty inputs is high.

Keywords: Climate change; directed technical change; innovation policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O33 O44 Q30 Q54 Q56 Q58 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 10 pages
Date: 2019-09
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ene and nep-env
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://cama.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/fil ... /71_2019_wiskich.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:een:camaaa:2019-71

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CAMA Working Papers from Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Cama Admin ().