I am happy to announce the 5th International Workshop on Economic Growth, Environment and Natural Resources which will be held on May 31 – June 1, 2019, in St. Petersburg, Russia. Kirill Borissov (EUSP) is the main organizer of this event, and I am on the scientific committee with Stefano Bosi (Université Paris Saclay), Thierry Bréchet (UCLouvain and CORE), Lucas Bretschger (ETH Zurich) and Mikhail Pakhnin (EUSP). Rick van der Ploeg will be the keynote speaker. This is going to be a very interesting workshop, in a great place, if you can make it then don’t miss it!
For more information follow this Link. If you need further information, do not hesitate to contact me.
Important Dates (2019)
• Submission deadline: February 8
• Notification of acceptance: February 13
• Final paper deadline: May 24
• Workshop dates: May 31 – June 1
The UECE – Research Unit on Complexity and Economics and the Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão of the Lisbon School of Economics and Management will host the ninth edition of the UECE Lisbon Meetings, which will take place on November 9th-11th, 2017.
At this conference I will organize two sessions in environmental economics. The participants will be Cecilia Vergari, Fabien Prieur, Nicolas Querou, Martin Quaas, Reyer Gerlagh, Charles Figuieres and myself. I would like extend a big thanks to the conference organizers, Filomena, Luca and Joana2 for making this happen and accepting us bunch of environmental economists.
In addition, Neslihan Uler will organize a special session in experiments and environmental economics (participants will be Neslihan Uler, Michael Price and Kjell Arne Brekke). Thus we have what I believe to be an interesting group of environmental economists at this game theory conference. Please show up if you are interested!
1) you have to submit your paper to the conference before 31st July: https://www.lisbonmeetings.com/participate
2) registration will be open from 1st September
3) conference will be 9-11 November
For further information look at https://www.lisbonmeetings.com/. In case you can’t find what you need, send me a mail and I hope to be able to help.
This will be the 1st Sports and Environmental Economics Days (SEED) workshop, organized by IPAG Business School Paris. The idea is to have a workshop of two days (Thursday/Friday, ie 12/13th October 2017), followed by a sports event of 1 1/2 days (Saturday/Sunday, ie 14/15th October 2017). We are searching for high quality working papers in environmental economics, and for this first edition also for those who share our deep affinity for bouldering. The climbing level is not (that) important, but we put emphasis on the level of environmental economics.
So today I present some new work that I did together with my co-author Benteng Zou from the Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg. We have a previous work together on endogenous preferences and environmental economics, which you can find HERE and download HERE. We have kept interest in the role that endogenous preferences play for the environment, and our current article also studies this particular role. It is entitled “Threshold Preferences and the Environment“. What do we do? Here is the abstract:
In this article we study the implication of thresholds in preferences. To model this we extend the basic model of John and Pecchenino (1994) by allowing the current level of environmental quality to have a discrete impact on how an agent trades off future consumption and environmental quality. In other words, we endogenize the semi-elasticity of utility based on a step function. We motivate the existence of the threshold based on research from political science, from arguments based on regulation and standards, cultural economics as well as ecological economics.
Our results are that the location of the threshold determines both the potential steady states as well as the dynamics. For low (high) thresholds, environmental quality converges to a low (high) steady state. For intermediate levels it converges to a stable p-cycle, with environmental quality being asymptotically bounded below and above by the low and high steady state. We discuss implications for intergenerational equity and policy making.
As policy implications we study shifts in the threshold. Our results are that, in case it is costless to shift the threshold, it is always worthwhile to do so. If it is costly to change the threshold, then it is worthwhile to change the threshold if the threshold originally was sufficiently low. Lump-sum taxes may lead to a development trap and should be avoided if there are uncertainties about the threshold or the effectiveness of the policy.
If you are interested, you can download our new paper HERE. Please feel free to think, discuss and comment, openly or privately. We are happy about any discussion. Enjoy!