Publications

Forthcoming
Mun S. Ho. Forthcoming. “Education, Participation and the revival of U.S. Economic Growth.” In CRIW conference on Education.
Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, and Jon D. Samuels. Forthcoming. “Long-term Estimates of U.S. Productivity and Growth.” In Growth and Stagnation in the World Economy by Jorgenson, Fukao, and Timmer (eds.). Draft

Earlier version presented at Third World KLEMS Conference, Tokyo, May 19 2014.

2020
Jing Cao, Mun S. Ho, and Wenhao Hu. 2020. “Analyzing carbon price policies using a general equilibrium model with household energy demand functions.” In Measuring Economic Growth and Productivity. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Jing Cao, Mun S. Ho, Wenhao Hu, and Dale Jorgenson. 2020. “Effective labor supply and growth outlook in China.” China Economic Review, 61.
Jing Cao, Mun S. Ho, Wenhao Hu, and Dale Jorgenson. 2020. “Estimating flexible consumption functions for urban and rural households in China.” China Economic Review, 61.
2019
Jing Cao, Mun Ho, Yating Li, Richard Newell, and William Pizer. 2019. “Chinese residential electricity consumption estimation and forecast using micro-data.” Resource and Energy Economics, 56, Pp. 6-27.
2017
Mun S. Ho, Zhongmin Wang, and Zichao Yu. 2017. China's Power Generation Dispatch. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
2016
Jing Cao, Mun S. Ho, and Govinda R. Timilsina. 6/2016. “Impacts of Carbon Pricing in Reducing the Carbon Intensity of China’s GDP”. Publisher's VersionAbstract

In contributing to global climate change mitigation efforts as agreed in Paris in 2015, China has set a target of reducing the carbon dioxide intensity of gross domestic product by 60-65 percent in 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Using a dynamic computable general equilibrium model of China, this study analyzes the economic and greenhouse gas impacts of meeting those targets through carbon pricing. The study finds that the trajectory of carbon prices to achieve the target depends on several factors, including how the carbon price changes over time and how carbon revenue is recycled to the economy. The study finds that carbon pricing that starts at a lower rate and gradually rises until it achieves the intensity target would be more efficient than a carbon price that remains constant over time. Using carbon revenue to cut existing distortionary taxes reduces the impact on the growth of gross domestic product relative to lump-sum redistribution. Recycling carbon revenue through subsidies to renewables and other low-carbon energy sources also can meet the targets, but the impact on the growth of gross domestic product is larger than with the other policies considered.

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7735

Mun S. Ho. 5/2016. “Commentary: Environmental Policy Issues in the “New Normal” Era of China.” Resources, no. 192, Pp. 8-10. Publisher's Version
Jing Cao, Mun S. Ho, and Huifang Liang. 2016. “Household Energy Demand in Urban China: Accounting for Regional Prices and Rapid Income Change.” Energy Journal, 37, SI1, Pp. 87-110. Draft

Draft was presented at 3rd EAAERE Conference, Huangshan, February 2013 and RUSE 2nd International Workshop, Beijing June 2013 (with Cao and Liang).

Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, and Jon D. Samuels. 2016. “The Impact of Information Technology on Post-War U.S. Growth.” Telecommunications Policy, 40, 5, Pp. 398-411. Publisher's Version
2015
Mun S. Ho and Zhongmin Wang. 1/15/2015. “Green Growth for China?” Resources, no. 188. Publisher's Version
Richard Goettle, Alan Fawcett, Mun S. Ho, Dale W. Jorgenson, Eric Smith, and Peter Wilcoxen. 2015. “Carbon Taxes and Fiscal Reform in the United States.” National Tax Journal, 68, 1, Pp. 121-138. Presentation

Earlier version presented at AERE Banff 2013.

Mun S. Ho, Dale W. Jorgenson, and Jon D. Samuels. 2015. “Outlook for U.S. Economic Growth. Lessons from a Prototype Industry-level Production Account for the U.S.” In Understanding the Growth Slowdown by Lindsey (ed.). Washington DC: Cato Institute. Book
2013
Mun S. Ho, Dale W. Jorgenson, and Jon D. Samuels. 7/15/2013. “Economic Growth in the Information Age”. Presentation

Presentation at NBER/CRIW Summer Institute in Cambridge, MA.

Mun S. Ho, Dale W. Jorgenson, and Jon D. Samuels. 7/15/2013. “A Prototype Industry-Level Production Account for the United States, 1947-2010”. Proposal for presentation

Presented at NBER/CRIW Summer Institute in Cambridge, MA.
Earlier version presented at World KLEMS Conference, Cambridge, MA, August 2012.

2012
Liwayway Adkins, Richard Garbaccio, Mun S. Ho, Eric Moore, and Richard D. Morgenstern. 6/2012. “Carbon Pricing with Output Based Subsidies: Impact on U.S. Industries over Multiple Time Frames”. Discussion PaperAbstract

The effects of a carbon price on U.S. industries are likely to change over time as firms and customers gradually adjust to new prices. The effects will also depend on offsetting policies to compensate losers and the number of countries implementing comparable policies. We examine the effects of a $15/ton CO2 price, including Waxman-Markey-type allocations, on a disaggregated set of industries, over four time horizons—the very-short-, short-, medium-, and long-runs—distinguished by the ability of firms to raise output prices, change their input mix, and reallocate capital. We find that if firms cannot pass on higher costs, the loss in profits in a number of energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) industries will be substantial. When output prices can rise to reflect higher energy costs, the reduction in profits is substantially smaller, and the offsetting policies in H.R. 2454 reduce output and profit losses even more. Over the medium- and long-terms, however, when more adjustments occur, the impact on output is more varied due to general equilibrium effects. We find that the use of the output-based rebates and other allocations in H.R. 2454 can substantially offset the output losses over all four time frames considered. Trade or "competitiveness" effects from the carbon price explain a significant portion of the fall in output for EITE sectors, but in absolute terms, the trade impacts are modest and can be reduced or even reversed with the subsidies. The subsidies are less effective, however, in preventing emissions leakage to countries not adopting carbon policies. Roughly half of U.S. trade-related leakage to non-policy countries can be explained by changes in the volume of trade and the other half by higher emissions intensities induced by lower world fuel prices.

Resources for the Future Discussion Paper.

Mun S. Ho. 4/2012. Effects of Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code on Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions by William D. Nordhaus, Stephen A. Merrill, Paul T. Beaton (eds.). Washington DC: Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy of The National Academies. NAS Report

Pages