Tax and Environmental Policy Modeling

Jing Cao, Hancheng Dai, Shantong Li, Chaoyi Guo, and et al. Mun Ho. 7/2021. “The general equilibrium impacts of carbon tax policy in China: A multi-model comparison.” Energy Economics, 99. Publisher's Version
Richard Goettle, Mun Ho, and Peter Wilcoxen. 2020. “Emissions accounting and carbon tax incidence in CGE models: bottom-up versus top-down.” In ) Measuring Economic Growth and Productivity: Foundations, KLEMS Production Models, and Extensions. Academic Press. Publisher's Version
Mun Ho, Wolfgang Britz, Ruth Delzeit, Florian Leblanc, Roberto Roson, Franziska Schuenemann, and Matthias Weitzel. 2020. “Modelling consumption and constructing long-term baselines in final demand.” Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 5, 1. Publisher's Version
Jaume Freire-Gonzalez and Mun Ho. 2019. “Carbon Taxes and the Double Dividend Hypothesis in a Recursive-Dynamic CGE model for Spain.” Economic Systems Research, 31, 2, Pp. 267-284. Publisher's Version
Jaume Freire-Gonzalez and Mun Ho. 2018. “Environmental Fiscal Reform and the Double Dividend: Evidence from a Dynamic General Equilibrium Model.” Sustainability, 10, 2. Publisher's Version
Dale Jorgenson, Richard Goettle, Mun Ho, and Peter Wilcoxen. 2018. “The Welfare Consequences of Taxing Carbon.” Climate Change Economics, 9, 1. 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.

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
Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, Richard Goettle, and Peter Wilcoxen. 2012. “Energy, the Environment and U.S. Economic Growth.” In Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling by Peter B. Dixon and Dale W. Jorgenson (eds.). North Holland Publishing Co. Book
Dale W. Jorgenson, Peter J. Wilcoxen, and Mun S. Ho. 2010. “The Distributional Impact of Climate Policy.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 10, 2. Draft

Draft is of earlier version at Energy Policy Symposium, Washington DC, January 20 2010.

Mun S. Ho, Richard Morgenstern, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. 11/2008. “The Impact of Carbon Price Policies on U.S. Industry Output and Employment”. Discussion Paper

Resources for the Future Discussion Paper. 

Dale W. Jorgenson, Richard J. Goettle, Peter J. Wilcoxen, and Mun S. Ho. 4/2008. The Economic Costs of a Market-based Climate Policy. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Publisher's Version

Pew Center on Global Climate Change White Paper

Dale W. Jorgenson, Richard Goettle, Peter Wilcoxen, and Mun S. Ho. 9/2004. “Energy and U.S. Economic Growth in the next Thirty Years: The Role of Information Technology and Technical Change”.
Richard D. Morgenstern, Mun S. Ho, Jhih-Shyang Shih, and Xuehua Zhang. 2004. “The Near-Term Impacts of Carbon Mitigation Policies on Manufacturing Industries.” Energy Policy, 32, Pp. 1825-1841. RFF Discussion Paper 2002
Dale W. Jorgenson, Richard J. Goettle, Peter J. Wilcoxen, and Mun S. Ho. 9/2000. The role of substitution in understanding the costs of climate change policy. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Report
Dale W. Jorgenson and Mun S. Ho. 2000. “Educational Policies to Stimulate Growth.” In Using Dynamic General Equilibrium Models for Policy Analysis by Harrison, Jensen, Pedersen, and Rutherford (eds.). North Holland Publishing Co. Book
Mun S. Ho. 12/1998. “Environmental Regulation and U.S. Trade.” In Growth (vol. 2) by Dale W. Jorgenson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Book
Mun S. Ho. 12/1998. “Stabilization of Carbon Emissions and International Competitiveness of U.S. Industries.” In Growth (vol. 2) by Dale W. Jorgenson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Book
Mun S. Ho. 4/1998. Modeling Trade Policies and U.S. Growth: Some methodological issues.. The Economic Implications of Liberalizing APEC Tariff and Nontariff Barriers to Trade, USITC Publication 3101 Session 10, April 4/1998.