35 results found
Martin R, Roulet A, Aghion P, et al., 2020, Environmental Preferences and Technological Choices: Is Market Competition Clean or Dirty?, Publisher: NBER Working Paper No 26921
Gosnell G, Martin R, Muûls M, et al., 2019, Making Smart Meters Smarter the Smart Way
We report first results from a large scale randomized control trial of different forms of energy consumption feedback facilitated by smart meters and smart phone feedback apps. Nearly 40,000 customers of a large energy retailer in the UK were exposed to either very basic feedback apps-i.e. simply giving consumers access to monthly energy consumption-or more advanced feedback involving peer group comparisons as well as dis-aggregation of total electricity consumption. We find that more advanced feedback can lead to an average consumption reduction of nearly 4% (Intent to Treat). Taking into account that a large number of customers never sign in to any feedback apps suggests that the reduction effect among customers that do sign in is up to 12%. The smart meter installation was implemented by different installation firms across our sample and we find the reduction effect only for one customers of one installer who displays higher capabilities along a number of metrics. This could suggest that achieving energy preservation objectives does not only depend on the technology involved but also on the capabilities and skills of firms installing those technologies. In the UK, smart meters are by default installed with In Home Displays (IHD) that provide real time feedback on energy use. Some of the customers in our sample did not receive an IHD and we explore if this had any impact on the consumption reduction effect described above. Customers with (and without) IHD comprise a self-selected sample so we have to be careful in drawing causal conclusions. However, we do not find any evidence that any energy reducing effect is contingent on IHDs.
Business support policies designed to raise employment and productivity are ubiquitous around the world. We exploit changes in the area-specific eligibility criteria for a major program to support manufacturing jobs through investment subsidies (Regional Selective Assistance). European state aid rules determine whether a sub-national geographical area is eligible for these subsidies, and we construct instrumental variables for area (and plant) eligibility based on the estimated parameters of these rule changes. We find areas eligible for higher subsidies significantly increase manufacturing jobs and reduce unemployment. An exogenous ten-percentage point increase in an area’s maximum investment subsidy stimulates about a 9% increase in manufacturing employment. The treatment effect exists solely for small firms – large companies appear to “game” the system, accepting subsidies without increasing activity. There are positive effects on investment and employment for incumbent firms but no effect on Total Factor Productivity.
Alberts G, Gurguc Z, Koutroumpis P, et al., 2016, Competition and norms: a self-defeating combination?, Energy Policy, Vol: 96, Pages: 504-523, ISSN: 1873-6777
Martin R, Van Reenen J, Elias Einiö E, et al., 2016, Do tax Incentives for Research Increase Firm Innovation? An RD Design for R&D
Martin R, Muuls M, Wagner U, 2016, The impact of the European Union Emissions Trade Scheme on regulated firms: what is the evidence after ten years?, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol: 10, Pages: 129-148, ISSN: 1750-6824
This article reviews the recent literature on ex post evaluation of the impacts of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) on regulated firms in the industrial and power sectors. We summarize the findings from original research papers concerning three broadly defined impacts: carbon dioxide emissions, economic performance and competitiveness, and innovation. We conclude by highlighting gaps in the current literature and suggesting priorities for future research on this landmark policy. ( JEL : Q52, Q54, Q58)
Martin R, Muuls M, Wagner UJ, 2015, Trading Behavior in the EU ETS, Workshop on Emissions Trading as Climate Policy Instruments - Evaluation and Prospects, Publisher: MIT PRESS, Pages: 213-238
Dechezlepretre A, Martin R, Mohnen M, 2014, Policy brief: Clean innovation and growth
Martin R, Dechezleprêtre A, Gennaioli C, et al., 2014, Searching for carbon leaks in multinational companies, Publisher: Imperial College Business School
Martin R, Dechezleprêtre A, Mohnen M, 2014, Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies, Publisher: Imperial College Business School
Martin R, de Preux LB, Wagner UJ, 2014, The impact of a carbon tax on manufacturing: Evidence from microdata, Journal of Public Economics, Vol: 117, Pages: 1-14, ISSN: 0047-2727
Martin R, Muûls M, de Preux LB, et al., 2014, On the empirical content of carbon leakage criteria in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Ecological Economics, Vol: 105, Pages: 78-88, ISSN: 0921-8009
Martin R, Muûls M, de Preux LB, et al., 2014, Industry Compensation under Relocation Risk: A Firm-Level Analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, American Economic Review, Vol: 104, Pages: 2482-2508, ISSN: 0002-8282
<jats:p> When regulated firms are offered compensation to prevent them from relocating, efficiency requires that payments be distributed across firms so as to equalize marginal relocation probabilities, weighted by the damage caused by relocation. We formalize this fundamental economic logic and apply it to analyzing compensation rules proposed under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, where emission permits are allocated free of charge to carbon-intensive and trade-exposed industries. We show that this practice results in substantial overcompensation for given carbon leakage risk. Efficient permit allocation reduces the aggregate risk of job loss by more than half without increasing aggregate compensation. (JEL H23, Q52, Q53, Q54, Q58) </jats:p>
Gennaioli C, Martin R, Muuls M, 2013, Using micro data to examine causal effects of climate policy, Handbook on Energy and Climate Change
Criscuolo C, Martin R, Overman H, et al., 2012, The Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy
Business support policies designed to raise productivity and employment are common worldwide, but rigorous micro-econometric evaluation of their causal effects is rare. We exploit multiple changes in the area-specific eligibility criteria for a major program to support manufacturing jobs (�Regional Selective Assistance�). Area eligibility is governed by pan-European state aid rules which change every seven years and we use these rule changes to construct instrumental variables for program participation. We match two decades of UK panel data on the population of firms to all program participants. IV estimates find positive program treatment effect on employment, investment and net entry but not on TFP. OLS underestimates program effects because the policy targets underperforming plants and areas. The treatment effect is confined to smaller firms with no effect for larger firms (e.g. over 150 employees). We also find the policy raises area level manufacturing employment mainly through significantly reducing unemployment. The positive program effect is not due to substitution between plants in the same area or between eligible and ineligible areas nearby. We estimate that �cost per job� of the program was only $6,300 suggesting that in some respects investment subsidies can be cost effective.
Martin R, de Preux L, Wagner U, 2012, The polluter-doesn't-pay principle, Publisher: CEP CP 369
Criscuolo C, Overman H, Martin R, et al., 2011, The effect of industrial policy on corporate performance: Evidence from panel data
Martin R, de Preux LB, Wagner UJ, 2011, The Impacts of the Climate Change Levy on Manufacturing: Evidence from Microdata
We estimate the impacts of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) on manufacturing plants using panel data from the UK production census. Our identification strategy builds on the comparison of outcomes between plants subject to the CCL and plants that were granted an 80% discount on the levy after joining a Climate Change Agreement (CCA). Exploiting exogenous variation in eligibility for CCA participation, we find that the CCL had a strong negative impact on energy intensity and electricity use. We cannot reject the hypothesis that the tax had no detrimental effects on economic performance and on plant exit.
Martin R, Muûls M, Preux LBD, et al., 2011, Anatomy of a paradox: Management practices, organizational structure and energy efficiency, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Pages: ---, ISSN: 0095-0696
Anderson B, Leib J, Martin R, et al., 2011, Climate change policy and business in Europe: evidence from interviewing managers
Martin R, Muuls M, Wagner U, 2011, Climate Change, Investment and Carbon Markets and Prices - Evidence from Manager Interviews
Martin R, 2010, Productivity Spreads, Market Power Spreads and Trade
Much of recent Trade theory focuses on heterogeneity of firms and the differential impacttrade policy might have on firms with different levels of productivity. A common problem isthat most firm level dataset do not contain information on output prices of firms which makesit difficult to distinguish between productivity differences and differences in market powerbetween firms. This paper develops a new econometric framework that allows estimatingboth firm specific productivity and market power in a semi-parametric way based on acontrol function approach. The framework is applied to Chilean firm level data from the early1980, shortly after the country underwent wide ranging trade reforms. The finding is that inall sectors of the economy market power declined and productivity increased. In sectors withhigher import penetration productivity particularly at the bottom end of the distributionincreased faster. At the same time market power declined particularly so at the top end of themarket power distribution. We also show, that ignoring the effect on market power leads toan underestimation of the positive effects of increased import penetration on productivity.
Martin R, 2010, Why is the US so Energy Intensive? Evidence from US Multinationals in the UK
Aghion P, Dechezlepretre A, Hemous D, et al., 2010, Testing for Path Dependence in Clean vs Dirty Innovation: Evidence from the Automotive Industry
Bloom N, Genakos C, Martin R, et al., 2010, Modern Management: Good for the Environment or Just Hot Air?, Economic Journal, Vol: 120, Pages: 551-572
Martin R, Muuls M, de Preux L, et al., 2009, Climate Change Policies and Management Practices
Criscuolo C, Martin R, 2009, Multinationals and U.S. Productivity Leadership: Evidence from Great Britain, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol: 91, Pages: 263-281
Martin R, Wagner U, 2009, Survey of firms’ responses to public incentives for energy innovation, including the UK Climate Change Levy and Climate Change Agreements
Bartelsman EJ, Haskel J, Martin R, 2008, Distance to Which Frontier? Evidence on Productivity Convergence from International Firm-level Data
An extensive literature on the convergence of productivity between countries examines whether productivity is pulled towards the global frontier country, perhaps due to learning and knowledge spillovers. More recently, studies within countries use the wide dispersion of productivity across firms to explore convergence to the national frontier. Given this within-country dispersion however between country-dispersion is hard to interpret, for it is quite possible that the best firms in a laggard average country are above at least some firms in a leading average country. This paper therefore uses micro data sets across many countries to build better measures of global and national frontiers and firmsâ€™ distance from them. Using UK data, we then find that (a) the national frontier exerts a stronger pull on domestic firms than does the global frontier and (b) the pull from the global frontier falls with technological distance, while the pull from the national frontier does not. This result suggests that firms might lag so far technologically that they cannot learn from the global frontier, while they still are able to benefit from domestic knowledge.
Martin R, 2008, Productivity Dispersion, Competition and Productivity Measurement*
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.