Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
, where
0s b1, and s =(1x).
The production and consumption of final output creates some pollution emissions E=Y
g
r 1 v
b
2
pMg 6
where
i
, i =1, 2, are the current values of shadow-prices of capital and pollution stocks, respectively. Note that it is
assumed that
2
b0 because pollution always reduces welfare, creating a negative externality on consumption.
The first-order conditions are straightforward and easy to calculate:
AH
AC
e
dt
C
h
k
1
0; or e
dt
C
h
k
1
; 7
AH
Av
a
2
k
1
Y
v
k
2
Y
g
a
2
gr1 v a
2
g1 v
b
2
1 v 1 v
b
2
b
2
v
1 vv
_ _
0;
or k
2
a
2
k
1
Y
1g
a
2
gr a
2
g1 v
b
2
1 v
b
2
1
b
2
v
; 8
d
k
1
AH
AK
a
1
k
1
Y
K
k
2
ga
1
Y
g
r 1 v
b
2
K
; 9
d
k
2
AH
AM
M
x
e
dt
pk
2
; 10
The growth rates of the dynamic multipliers are
g
k
1
d
k
1
k
1
a
1
Y
K
k
2
k
1
ga
1
Y
g
r 1 v
b
2
K
_ _
; 11
g
k
2
d
k
2
k
2
M
x
e
dt
k
2
p: 12
Differentiating Eq. (7) logarithmically, the result will be:
g
k
2
hg
c
; 13
The transversality conditions are:
lim
tYl
e
dt
Ht 0; 14
lim
tYl
e
dt
k
1
tKt 0; 15
lim
tYl
e
dt
k
2
tMt 0: 16
228 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
First of all, we want to prove that our model exhibits a locally stable saddle point. To this aim we have to find the
optimal values of physical capital, pollution stock and consumption. We know the equations that describe K
and M
,
thus we want to derive the motion equation of consumption. To this aim we can calculate the partial derivative to
time of (7) and again substitute it for
1
in (9); after eliminating
2
by means of (8) and with a little algebra, we
obtain:
d
C
C
uWCC=uVC
d r
a
2
gr1 1
b
2
b
2
a
2
g
1
b
2
b
2
a
2
g
_ _ _ _
; 17
where r =
1
Y/ K is the rate of interest (that in the steady state should be equal to the marginal rate of return of
capital, Cass, 1965; Romer, 1996). From our specification of the utility function (CIES) we know that u(C)C/ u
(C) = and letting
2
(1v) (1v)
2
(
2
2
v) / (1v)
2
v (
2
2
) = (where N0), to simplify the
analysis, we may rewrite (17) as:
d
C
C
h
fru dg: 18
Given that v is constant in the steady state, we can see that (18), together with (2) and (3), constitutes a system of
three unknowns in three equations that we can solve mathematically. By means of (8) and (10) it is also possible to
unite the two differential equations of physical capital and pollution stock in a single one, by integrating (3) with
respect to time and using the two equations mentioned above.
The result is:
d
K
K
a
1
a
2
12g1x
p
2
a
2
C
h
g1x
_
C: 19
Letting
C=K
=0 we may thus calculate the optimal values of consumption and capital respectively. By means of
(18) and (19), we find
C/ Kb0 and K / Cb0, from which we now possess all the information necessary to sketch
our phase diagram in (K, C) space, as in the figure below (Fig. 1).
This shows that we have a locally stable saddle point equilibrium. Moreover, we can prove this result by calculating
the characteristic roots of the system of equations represented by (18) and (19), evaluated in the steady state, to find that
we have two real roots, with opposite signs (see Appendix for analytical details).
Fig. 1. Phase diagram.
229 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
3. Decreasing marginal rate of return of capital and pollution dynamics
To study the relationship between the interest rate and the dynamics of pollution stock, we have to find the equation
that describes r. By means of (17) we obtain:
r d h
d
c
c
_ _
1
u
; 20
where the term 1/ N0 represents the effect on r of the internalization of the negative externality on the environment,
represented by pollution (we remember that combines the parameters of the model). In other words, the rate of
interest is lower when the negative externality of production is internalized. Without including the stock of pollution in
the utility function and the effort to reduce emissions in the model, the rate of interest would in fact be greater, because
equal to + (c
d
/ c). This is because the marginal productivity of capital would be higher if the adverse effect of
production on the environment were accounted for.
Now, putting in evidence (1v)
2
in (17) and then substituting in (3), we get the equation that links the
dynamics of the pollution stock with the interest rate:
d
M K
a
1
a
2
g
r hg
c
d
ra
2
g
_ _
a
2
g r 1
b
2
1
_ _
1
b
2
1
b
2
_ _
pM: 3
From the equation above we can see that M is a direct function of the interest rate. To express it simply, if the interest
rate is high the absolute change in pollution stock is also high and vice-versa. Now we can consider two different
hypotheses: in the first, no pollution abatement policy is adopted (i.e. v=1); in the second, some labor effort is devoted
to making the environment cleaner (i.e. vb1).
3.1. Case I: v=1
If we assume that no labor effort is allotted to the green sector (i.e. v=1), we have to rewrite the appropriate
Hamiltonian and derive the relative first order conditions. If we repeat the process outlined above to derive the equation
describing the dynamics of pollution stock in terms of interest rate, pure time preference and growth rate of
consumption, we find:
d
M r d hg
C
Ke
dt
uVc
k
2
ga
1
pM: 21
Seeing that K Y
1
a
1
v
a
2
a
1
from (1), and substituting in (21) we obtain:
d
M r d hg
C
Y
1
a
1
a
2
a
1
e
dt
uVc
k
2
ga
1
pM: 22
Calculating the first and second partial derivative of M with respect to the final output, we find:
A
d
M
AY
Y
1a
1
a
1
r d hg
C
a
2
a
1
e
dt
uVc
k
2
ga
2
1
; 23
and
A
2
d
M
AY
2
Y
12a
1
a
1
a
1
1
a
2
1
r d hg
C
a
2
a
1
e
dt
uVc
k
2
ga
1
: 24
It is worth noting that M
/ YT0 and
2
M / Y
2
T0 depending on whether r T+g
C
. Thus in the steady state, in
which r =+g
C
, the pollution stock will decline at the rate . It is worth noting that this occurs for any positive value
of the term Ke
t
u(c) /
2
1
. In this way we are able to show that the pollution stock will decline without any
230 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
environmental policy or technological change process, merely as a result of growth. During the transitional dynamics,
M
may be positive or negative depending on whether the first addend is greater or lower than the second in (22). We
thus obtain a fairly inverse U-shaped EKC in which the peak occurs for [r g
C
]Ke
t
u(c) /
2
1
=M.
Note that the declining behavior of the rate of interest has two effects. Firstly, income grows as a result of capital
accumulation, thus making it possible to implement more environmentally friendly devices, because the country
becomes richer. Secondly, the aggregate investment and production levels increase, and the level of pollution may rise
so much that it could counterbalance the former effect.
2
To understand better why we find that pollution emissions decline starting from a given income level, we can take
the partial derivative of pollution emissions M with respect to the interest rate, using Eq. (23) to obtain:
A
d
M
Ar
Y
1
a
1
a
2
a
1
e
dt
uV
c
k
2
ga
1
: 25
If we compare (23), that accounts for the effect of income growth on pollution (positive for the environment), and
(25), that considers the effect of an increase in production and in the level of emissions (negative for the environment),
knowing that Y
1
a
1
c=k
2
ga
1
bY
1a
1
a
1
c=k
2
ga
2
1
, we are able to say that, when r b(+g
C
), the effect of an income
increase on the pollution emissions level is greater than the effect of the reduction in the interest rate. In other words,
when capital accumulation is low (the country is poor) the two effects work in the same direction (for r N+g
C
).
When the interest rate becomes low and capital accumulation is high, the two effects work in opposite directions and
the first is greater in magnitude than the second, such as to explain the declining branch of the EKC.
3.2. Case II: vb1
Now we can consider the case in which some resources are allotted to improving the quality of the environment (i.e.
vb1). In this case the dynamics of M are described by (3), by means of which we calculate the first and second partial
derivative of M
_ _
; 26
and
A
2
d
M
AY
2
Y
g2
g 1
r hg
c
d
ra
2
_ _
a
2
g r 1
b
2
1
_ _
1
b
2
1
b
2
_ _
: 27
It is worth noting that M
2
M
/ Y
2
T0 depending on whether r T+g
c
. In this way a quite inverse U-shaped incomepollution pattern is
generated as income grows and the rate of interest decreases with time, as we report in Fig. 2, below.
The upper part of Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the discount rate (that is constant) and the interest rate; it is
easy to understand that the peak of the EKC occurs at the level of per-capita income at which r =. The shape of the
EKC, first concave increasing and subsequently convex decreasing, is consistent with the findings of some other
scholars (John and Pecchenino, 1994; Jaeger, 1998; Stokey, 1998),
3
as well as with some econometric analyses (Brock
2
I am grateful to one of the referees for this suggestion.
3
The analytical condition to get a different shape of the EKC is to assume that there are not increasing returns to scale in pollution (i.e.
1
+
2
b1).
231 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
and Taylor, 2005; Galeotti et al., 2006; Panayotou, 2000). The exact shape of the relationship between the per-
capita income and harmful emissions in the real world, however, probably depends on the kind of pollutant accounted
for.
Eq. (3) is also interesting because it allows us to clarify the relationship between pollution dynamics and the interest
rate. Calculating the appropriate partial derivative we get:
A
d
M
Ar
Y
g
hg
c
d
r
2
a
2
g
a
2
g r 1
b
2
1
_ _
1
b
2
1
b
2
_ _
N 0; 28
such that we may affirm unequivocally that M and r are positively related. In other words, when the country has a high
rate of interest as a result of limited availability of capital, the pollution stock increases. It is only when the marginal return
of capital decreases such that rb+g
c
, that the country will allot more labor effort to the green industry. Finally, we
can also demonstrate that there is an inverse relationship between M and the pure time preference, deriving [3] with
respect to :
A
d
M
Ad
Y
g
ra
2
g
a
2
g r 1
b
2
1
_ _
1
b
2
1
b
2
_ _
b 0: 29
From (29) it is evident that the dynamics of pollution are decreasing in the discount rate, as highlighted in a recent
article (Di Vita, in press).
Fig. 2. Incomepollution pattern.
232 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
4. Final remarks
Without an environmental policy, pollution dynamics show a fairly inverse U-shaped pattern. The up-and-down
behaviour e of emissions depends on the level of the rate of interest. When the latter declines to a value at which M is
zero, a further increase in income will imply a drop in pollution accumulation.
Using both versions of the model we may prove the existence of a direct relationship between the interest rate and
pollution emissions dynamics. This is why it is only when people become rich that they are prepared to allot resources
to the green sector of the economy.
The abatement effort is not necessary to reduce emissions and to explain the falling branch of the incomepollution
pattern. The same occurs for the assumption of increasing returns to scale in the pollution abatement function. It is only
when the interest rate becomes lower than the discount rate that the country is willing to implement some environmentally
friendly devices. In cases where an environmental policy is launched, the question is whether or not this policy anticipates
the time at which the peak in the incomepollution pattern is reached; it is basically an empirical matter.
In this paper we assume that the discount rate is exogenously given, but we know that impatience in Fisher (1930)
means a decrease in income growth (Chavas, 2004; Das, 2003), such that our results could be biased. An interesting
topic for further research is to make the pure time preference index endogenous.
By means of the mechanism outlined in this paper we are able to explain why we find a positive relationship
between income and pollution emissions in developing countries and a negative one in wealthy nations.
Obviously, more econometric analyses are necessary to support the results of this paper.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Reyer Gerlagh for encouraging me to write this paper, and to an anonymous referee, Roberto Cellini
and Efrem Castelnuovo for their useful suggestions and comments. An earlier version of this study was presented at
seminars held at the University of Catania, University of Padua, Third World Congress of Environmental and Resource
Economists, Kyoto (Japan) July 37, 2006, Eighth International Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare,
Instanbul (Turkey) July 1317, 2006 and 62nd Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, Paphos,
Cyprus, August 2831, 2006. All errors are the Author's alone.
Appendix A
To check that our model exhibits a saddle point equilibrium, we have to calculate the characteristic roots of the
differential equation system represented by (18) and (19), to form the Jacobian matrix and evaluate it at the steady state
point (K
, C
)
J
P
A
d
K
P
A
d
K
AK AC
P
A
d
C
P
A
d
C
AK AC
_
_
_
_
K
;C
A1
Calculating the four partial derivatives at K
, C
we obtain:
A
d
K
AK
K
a
1
12xgx
a
2
12xgx
1
g1x
g 1x
a
1
1 2xg x
K
b 0; A2
A
d
K
AC
p
2
g1x
a
2
C
h
1
g1x
g 1x
h
C
1 N 0; A3
A
d
C
AK
a
1
K
a
1
2
a
1
1
a
2
C
u
h
b 0; A4
A
d
C
AC
1
h
ru d S 0: A5
233 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
Thus the qualitative Jacobian matrix takes the form
J
?
_ _
; A6
The qualitative information we need about the characteristic roots
1
and
2
to confirm that we have an equilibrium
is conveyed by the result that
q
1
q
2
J
K
;C
p
2
g1x
a
2
C
h
1
g1x
g 1x
h
C
_ _
1 K
a
1
2
a
1
1
a
2
C
h
b
2
1
1
b
2
1
r 1 b
2
_ _
b 0:
A7
This implies that the two roots have opposite signs, which establishes the steady state to be locally a saddle point.
References
Andreoni, James, Levinson, Arik, 2001. The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Public Economics 80, 269286.
Arrow, Kennet, Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.O., Levin, S., Mler, K.G., Perrings, C., Pimentel, D., 1995.
Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268, 520521.
Borghesi, Simone, 1999. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Survey of the Literature. Nota di Lavoro, vol. 85. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei,
Milan.
Brock, William A., Taylor, Scott M., 2005. Economic Growth and the Environment: A Review of Theory and Empirics. In: Durlauf, S., Aghion, P.
(Eds.), Elsevier.
Cass, David, 1965. Optimum growth in an aggregative model of capital accumulation. Review of Economics and Studies 32, 233240.
Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2004. On impatience, economic growth and the environmental Kuznets curve: a dynamic analysis of resource management.
Environmental and Resource Economics 28 (2), 123152.
Das, Mausumi, 2003. Optimal growth with decreasing marginal impatience. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 27 (10), 18811898.
Di Vita, Giuseppe, 2004. Another explanation of the pollutionincome pattern. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 21 (6), 588592.
Di Vita, Giuseppe, in press. Is the discount rate relevant in explaining the environmental Kuznets curve? Journal of Policy Modeling.
Fisher, Irving, 1930. The Theory of Interest. New York, Macmillan.
Galeotti, Marzio, Alessandro, Lanza, Pauli, Francesco, 2006. Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for CO
2
emissions: a robustness exercise.
Ecological Economics 57 (1), 152163.
Grossman, Gene M., Krueger, Alan B., 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBERWorking Paper No. 3914. November.
Gruver, G.W., 1976. Optimal investment in pollution control in a neoclassical growth context. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
3 (2), 165177.
Harbaugh, William T., Levinson, Arik, Wilson, David Molloy, 2002. Re-examining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. The
Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (3), 541551.
Hoel, Michael, 1978. Resource extraction and recycling with environmental costs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 5,
220235.
Huhtala, Anni, 1999. Optimizing production technology choices: conventional production vs. recycling. Resources and Energy Economics 21, 118.
Jaeger, William. 1998. Growth and Environmental Resources: ATheoretical Basis for the U-shaped Environmental Path. mimeo, Williams College.
John, A., Pecchenino, R., 1994. An overlapping generations model of growth and the environment. Economic Journal 104, 13931410.
Jones, Larry E., Manuelli, Rodolfo E., 2000. Endogenous policy choice: the case of pollution and growth. Review of Economic Dynamics 4 (2),
369405.
Keeler, Emmett, Spence, Michael, Zeckhauser, Richard, 1971. The optimal control of pollution. Journal of Economic Theory 4, 1934.
Koopmans, Tjalling C., 1965. On the concept of the optimal economic growth. The Econometric Approach to Development Planning. North Holland,
Amsterdam.
Lpez, Ramn, Mitra, Siddhartha, 2000. Corruption, pollution and the Kuznets environment curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 40 (2), 137150.
Lusky, Rafael, 1976. A model of recycling and pollution control. Canadian Journal of Economics 9 (1), 91101.
Magnani, Elisabetta, 2000. The environmental Kuznets curve, environmental protection policy and income distribution. Ecological Economics 32,
431443.
Panayotou, Theodore, 2000. Economic growth and the environment. CID Working Papers with No. 56. Center for International Development at
Harvard University.
Pfaff, Alexander S.P., Chaudhuri, Shubham, Nye, Howard L.M., 2004. Household production and environmental Kuznets curves. Environmental and
Resource Economics 27 (2), 187200.
Plourde, C., 1972. A model of waste accumulation and disposal. Canadian Journal of Economics 5, 119125.
Ramsey, Frank, 1928. A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal 38, 543559.
Romer, Paul M., 1996. Advanced Macroeconomics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
234 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235
Rothman, D.S., 1998. The environmental Kuznets curves real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption based approaches. Ecological
Economics 25, 177194.
Selden, Thomas M., Song, Daquing, 1995. Neoclassical growth, the J curve for abatement, and the inverted U curve for pollution. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 29, 162168.
Smith, Vernon L., 1972. Dynamics of waste accumulation: disposal versus recycling. Quarterly Journal of Economics LXXXVI, 600616.
Stokey, Nancy L., 1998. Are there limits to growth? International Economic Review 39 (1), 132.
Suri, Vivek, Chapman, Duane, 1998. Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics
25, 195208.
Tahvonen, Olli, Salo, Seppo, 2001. Economic growth and transitions between renewable and nonrenewable energy resources. European Economic
Review 45 (8), 13791398.
235 G. Di Vita / Economic Modelling 25 (2008) 225235