مقایسه اثرات تکانه های برون زا بر چرخه تجاری ایران تحت سیاست های زیست محیطی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

2 استاد گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه اقتصاد، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

چکیده

حفاظت محیط زیست به عنوان یکی از اهداف توسعه هزاره نیازمند مداخله سیاستگذاران و اجرای سیاست های زیست محیطی به منظور محدود کردن انتشار گازهای گلخانه ای است. در این پژوهش، پیامدهای اجرای سیاست های زیست محیطی بر متغیرهای اقتصادی (از جمله مصرف، تولید و سرمایه گذاری) در اقتصاد ایران برای دوره زمانی 1357-1396 مورد بررسی قرار می گیرد. برای این منظور از روش تعادل عمومی پویای تصادفی (DSGE) جهت تجزیه و تحلیل یک مدل اقتصاد بسته و با رویکرد ادوار تجاری حقیقی استفاده می شود. منبع نوسانات در اقتصاد، تکانه بهره وری کل عوامل تولید و تکانه قیمت انرژی است. همچنین سرمایه به طور کامل در فرایند تولید استفاده نمی شود. نتایج شبیه سازی نشان می دهد: 1. در تکانه مثبت بهره وری، سیاست سقف انتشار بهترین عملکرد را از لحاظ کاهش نوسانات متغیرهای اقتصادی و کاهش انتشار گازهای گلخانه ای دارد. 2. در تکانه مثبت قیمت انرژی، سیاست سقف انتشار و هدف شدت انتشار، بهترین عملکرد را از لحاظ سطح و نوسان متغیرهای اقتصادی و انتشار آلودگی نشان می دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of the Effects of Exogenous Impulses on Iran's Business Cycle under Environmental Policies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahtab MehrjoIrani 1
  • Mohammad Ali Falahi 2
  • Narges Salehnia 3
1 Ph.D. Student in Economics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2 Professor in Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
3 Associate Professor in Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

Environmental protection, as one of the Millennium development goals, requires the intervention of policymakers and the implementation of environmental policies to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. This research investigates the consequences of implementing environmental policies on economic variables (including consumption, production, and investment) in Iran's economy from 1978 to 2017. For this purpose, the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) method was used to analyze a closed economy model with the approach of real business cycles. The source of fluctuations in the economy is the momentum of the total productivity of production factors and the momentum of energy prices. Also, the capital is not fully used in the production process. The simulation results show: 1. During the positive momentum of productivity, the emission cap policy has the best performance in reducing the fluctuations of economic variables and greenhouse gas emissions. 2. During the positive momentum of energy prices, the emission cap policy and the emission intensity target policy show the best performance regarding the level and fluctuation of economic variables and pollution emissions

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Environmental policies
  • productivity momentum
  • energy price momentum
  • DSGE model

مراجع

  1. Angelopoulos, K., Economides, G., & Philippopoulos, A. (2010). What is the best environmental policy? Taxes, permits and rules under economic and environmental uncertainty. CESifo Working Paper series 2980, CESifo Group Munich.
  2. Annicchiarico, B., Carattini, S., Fischer, C., & Heutel, G. (2021). Business cycles and environmental policy: Literature review and policy implications, NBER Working Paper, 29032.
  3. Annicchiarico, B., & Di Dio, F. (2015). Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 69, 1–21.
  4. Annicchiarico, B., & Di Dio, F. (2017). GHG emissions control and monetary policy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 67(4), 23–851.
  5. Annicchiarico, B., & Diluiso, F. (2019). International transmission of the business cycle and environmental policy. Resource and Energy Economics, 58, 101-112.
  6. Bovenberg, L., & Goulder, H. (2002). Environmental taxation and regulation. Handbook of Public Economics, 1471-1545.
  7. Calvia, M. (2024). Fossi energy use and carbon emissions: An easy-to-implement technical policy experiment. Green Finance, 6(3), 407-429.
  8. Carattini, S., Heutel, H., & Melkadze, G. (2021). Climate policy, financial frictions, and transition risk. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 28525.
  9. Diluiso, F., Annicchiarico, B., Kalkuhl, M., & Minx, J.C. (2020). Climate actions and stranded assets: The role of financial regulation and monetary policy. CESifo WP, No. 8486.
  10. Dissouu, Y., & Karnizova, L. (2016). Emissions cap or emissions tax? A multi-sector business cycle analysis. Working Paper, University of Ottawa.
  11. Doda, B. (2014). Evidence on business cycles and CO2 Journal of Macroeconomics, 40 214-227.
  12. Economides, G., & Xepapadeas, A. (2019). The effects of climate change on a small open economy. Bank of Greece Working Paper, 267.
  13. Fa, L., & Ma, M. (2024). The enlightenment of the General Average Storage and Waste theory to environmental economics. Springer Nature. 454-461.
  14. Fernandez-Villaverde, J., Hurtado, S., & Nuno, G. (2023). Financial frictions and the wealth distribution, Econometrica, 91, 869–901.
  15. Finn, M.G. (1991). Energy price shocks, capacity utilization and business cycle fluctuations. Technical Report, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  16. Finn, M.G. (2000). Perfect competition and the effects of energy price increases on economic activity. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 32(3), 400-416.
  17. Fischer, C., & Springborn, M. (2011). Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(3),352–366.
  18. Fourcade, M., Etienne, O., & Yann A. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114.
  19. Gibson, J., & Garth, H. (2020). Pollution and labor market search externalities over the business cycle. National Bureau of Economic Research. No,
  20. Hahn, R.W. (1989). Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: How the patient followed the doctor’s orders. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), 95–114.
  21. Heutel, G. (2012). How should environmental policy respond to business cycles? Optimal policy under persistent productivity shocks. Review of Economic Dynamics, 15(2), 244– 264.
  22. Jaimes, R. (2020). The dynamic effects of environmental and fiscal policy shocks. University of Tilburg, mimeo.
  23. Kaya, Y., & Yokobori, K. (1997). Environment, energy, and economy: strategies for sustainability. United Nations University Press Tokyo.
  24. Khan, H., Metaxoglou, K., Knittel, C. R., & Papineau, M. (2019). Carbon emissions and business cycles. Journal of Macroeconomics, 60, 1-19.
  25. Kim, I.-M., & Loungani, P. (1992). The role of energy in real business cycle models. Journal of Monetary Economics, 29(2),173–189.
  26. Kydland, F.E., & Prescott, E. C. (1982). Time to build and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrics: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1345–1370.
  27. Lintunen, J., & Lauri, V. (2013). On optimal emission control–Taxes, substitution and business cycles. Bank of Finland Research Discussion Paper, 24.
  28. Mankiw, G. (1989). Real business cycles: A new keynesian perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer, 79-90.
  29. Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. (2021). Climate change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2, 23-91.
  30. McCallum, B. (1989). Real business cycles, In Robert Barro, ed., Modern Business Cycle Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
  31. Pachauri, R.K., et al. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
  32. Pizer, W.A., & Prest, B.C. (2020). Prices versus quantities with policy updating. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 7 (3), 483–518.
  33. Punzi, M.T. (2019). Role of bank lending in financing green projects: A dynamic stochastic general equilibrium approach. In Sachs, J., Woo, W. T., Yoshino, N., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., ed., Handbook of Green Finance: Energy Security and Sustainable Development, Sustainable Development. Springer.
  34. Rotemberg, J.J., & Woodford, M. (1996). Imperfect competition and the effects of energy price increases on economic activity. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
  35. Russo, E., & Domeisen, D.I.V. (2023). Increasing intensity of extreme heatwaves: The crucial role of metrics, Geophysical Research Letters, 50, e2023GL103540.
  36. Sinn, H.-W. (2012). The green paradox: A supply-side approach to global warming. MIT press.
  37. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University press.
  38. Summers, L. (1986) Some skeptical observations on real business cycle theory. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, Papers and Proceedings, 80, 134-138.
  39. Uitto, J.l. (2016). Evaluating the environment as a global public good. The journal Evaluation. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  40. van den Bijgaart, Inge, M., & Smulders, S. (2018). Does a recession call for less stringent environmental policy? A partial-equilibrium second-best analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics,70(4), 807-834.
  41. Weitzman, M.L. (1974). Prices vs. quantities. Rev.Econ. Stud, 41, 477–491.
نظریه های کاربردی اقتصاد
دوره 12، شماره 44
خرداد 1404
صفحه 49-70

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار