Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Directed technical change and environmental quality

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Portuguese Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a directed technical change model with two sectors, clean and dirty, to analyze the impact of the degree of substitutability between sectors and the degree of scale effects on the environmental quality. The technological knowledge is biased towards the clean sector; i.e., the environmental quality is improved whenever the elasticity of substitution between inputs in both sectors increases and, along with that, the economy: (i) is rich in renewable capital, (ii) has higher relative supply of clean labor under scale effects, and (iii) enjoys higher relative R&D productivity in the clean sector. The improvement in the environmental quality benefits the welfare. Moreover, the growth rate is higher in the presence of scale effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to the literature the value of θ is greater than 1 (e.g., Acemoglu (2009), Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2004), Smets and Wouters (2007), Trabandt and Uhlig (2011), Vissing-Jørgensen (2002)).

  2. The aggregate financial wealth held by the representative households is composed of equity of machines/intermediate-goods producers \( B(t)={\sum}_{i={L}_D,{L}_C}{B}_i(t) \), considering the profits seized by the producers of the different machines.

  3. Hereinafter, for simplicity of exposition, the time argument is usually suppressed.

  4. In this paper when we mention “output” we are more precisely referring to the “value added” of the Economy, which, in our case, implies that the role of capital is replaced with machines/intermediate goods.

  5. In the neoclassical growth model without endogenous technological-knowledge change, a positive limit of the declining marginal productivity of productive factors is a required condition for long-run growth. With a CES production functions in a two-factor setting, this means to a constant elasticity of substitution between factors that is larger than one. In standard models of directed technological change, the limit of marginal products plays a similar role since factor intensities continue to change in the long run.

  6. Hence, technological knowledge is not labor saving, meaning that improvements in technological knowledge decrease the marginal product of labor and thus labor scarcity induces improvements in technological knowledge.

  7. Indeed, since \( \dot{A_i}{V}_i={Z}_i \) and \( \dot{A_i}={\lambda}_i\cdotp {Z}_i\cdotp {L}_i^{-{\gamma}_{L_i}} \) it results that \( \dot{V_i}=0 \).

  8. As emphasized in Acemoglu (2010), the relationship between labor scarcity and technological advances can vary over different epochs. The technological-knowledge advances of the late 18th and 19th centuries in Britain and the US were above all labor saving and did induce innovation and technological-knowledge adoption (Habakkuk 1962), while this may no longer be the case in current industrialized economies or even anywhere around the world.

  9. Acemoglu et al. (2016) have shown that using either the R&D expenditures or the number of scientists the estimate results obtained for the innovation production function are identical.

References

  • Acemoglu D (1998) Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality. Q J Econ 113(4):1055–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu D (2002) Directed technical change. Rev Econ Stud 69(4):781–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu D (2009) Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu D (2010) When does labor scarcity encourage innovation? J Polit Econ 118(6):1037–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2012) The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev 102(1):131–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Hanley D, Kerr W (2016) Transition to clean technology. J Polit Econ 124(1):52–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afonso O (2006) Skill-biased technological knowledge without scale effects. Appl Econ 38(1):13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afonso O (2012) Scale-independent north-south trade effects on the technological-knowledge bias and on wage inequality. Rev World Econ 148(1):181–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P, Howitt PW, Howitt P, Brant-Collett M, García-Peñalosa C et al (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P, Dechezleprêtre A, Hemous D, Martin R, Van Reenen J (2016) Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. J Polit Econ 124(1):1–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, Spolaore E, Wacziarg R (2005) Trade, growth and the size of countries. In: Handbook of Economic Growth, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1499–1542

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson SE, Halvorsen R (1976) Interfuel substitution in steam electric power generation. J Polit Econ 84(5):959–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (2004) Economic growth. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretschger L, Smulders S (2012) Sustainability and substitution of exhaustible natural resources: how structural change affects long-term r&d-investments. J Econ Dyn Control 36(4):536–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calel R, Dechezlepretre A (2016) Environmental policy and directed technological change: evidence from the european carbon market. Rev Econ Stat 98(1):173–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canuto O, Cavallari M (2012) Natural capital and the resource curse

  • Considine TJ (1989) Separability, functional form and regulatory policy in models of interfuel substitution. Energy Econ 11(2):82–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis LS (2008) Scale effects in growth: a role for institutions. J Econ Behav Organ 66(2):403–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinopoulos E, Thompson P (2000) Endogenous growth in a cross-section of countries. J Int Econ 51(2):335–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67(3):297–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbasha EH, Roe TL (1996) On endogenous growth: the implications of environmental externalities. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2):240–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel K (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436(7051):686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuss MA (1977) The demand for energy in Canadian manufacturing: an example of the estimation of production structures with many inputs. J Econ 5(1):89–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George A (2015) Directed technical change, technology adoption and the resource curse hypothesis. Prague Econ Papers 2015(4):452–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin JM (1977) Inter-fuel substitution possibilities: a translog application to intercountry data. Int Econ Rev:755–770

  • Habakkuk HJ (1962) American and British technology in the nineteenth century: the search for labour saving inventions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassler J, Krusell P, Olovsson C (2012) Energy-saving technical change. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

  • Hourcade JC, Pottier A, Etienne E (2012) The environment and directed technical change: comment

  • International Energy Agency (IEA) (2015) World Energy outlook 2015. Paris, France

  • IRENA (2015) Rethinking energy: renewable energy and climate change. http://www.irenaorg/rethinking/IRENA20_REthinking_Energy_2nd_report_2015.pdf

  • Jones CI (1995a) R & d-based models of economic growth. J Polit Econ 103(4):759–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CI (1995b) Time series tests of endogenous growth models. Q J Econ 110(2):495–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CT (1995c) A dynamic analysis of interfuel substitution in us industrial energy demand. J Bus Econ Stat:459–465

  • Jones CI (2002) Sources of us economic growth in a world of ideas. Am Econ Rev 92(1):220–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer M (1993) Population growth and technological change: one million bc to 1990. Q J Econ 108(3):681–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landsea CW (2005) Meteorology: hurricanes and global warming. Nature 438(7071):E11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzi E, Sue Wing I (2011) Directed technical change in the energy sector: an empirical test of induced directed innovation. In: WCERE 2010 Conference, mimeo

  • Mattauch L, Creutzig F, Edenhofer O (2015) Avoiding carbon lock-in: policy options for advancing structural change. Econ Model 50:49–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monge-Naranjo A, Sanchez JM, Santaeulalia-Llopis R (2015) Natural resources and global misallocation. Federal reserve bank of st. Tech. Rep., Louis. Working Paper No. 2015–036A

  • Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Q J Econ 114(3):941–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change, vol 31. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (2007) A review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3):686–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organization WH (2016) World health statistics 2016: monitoring health for the SDGs sustainable development goals. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou C, Saam M, Schulte P (2017) Substitution between clean and dirty energy inputs: a macroeconomic perspective. Rev Econ Stat 99(2):281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelli M (2012) The elasticity of substitution between clean and dirty inputs in the production of electricity. Proceedings of the Conference on Sustainable Resource Use and Economic Dynamics (SURED 2012), Ascona, pp 4–7

  • Peretto P, Smulders S (2002) Technological distance, growth and scale effects. Econ J 112(481):603–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Sebastian F, Raveh O (2015) The natural resource curse and fiscal decentralization. Am J Agric Econ 98(1):212–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck RS (1977) Interfuel substitution and the industrial demand for energy: an international comparison

  • Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. Am Econ Rev 92(1):160–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp D, Newell R (2012) Where does energy r&d come from? Examining crowding out from energy r&d. Energy Econ 34(4):980–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serletis A, Timilsina G, Vasetsky O (2011) International evidence on aggregate short-run and long-run interfuel substitution. Energy Econ 33(2):209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smets F, Wouters R (2007) Shocks and frictions in us business cycles: a bayesian dsge approach. Am Econ Rev 97(3):586–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokoloff KL (1988) Inventive activity in early industrial america: evidence from patent records, 1790–1846. J Econ Hist 48(4):813–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbuks J (2010) Interfuel substitution and energy use in the UK manufacturing sector

  • Stern N (2009) A blueprint for a safer planet: how to manage climate change and create a new era of progress and prosperity. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokey NL (1998) Are there limits to growth? Int Econ Rev: 1–31

  • Stott PA, Stone DA, Allen MR (2004) Human contribution to the european heatwave of 2003. Nature 432(7017):610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strulik H, Prettner K, Prskawetz A (2013) The past and future of knowledge-based growth. J Econ Growth 18(4):411–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabandt M, Uhlig H (2011) The laffer curve revisited. J Monet Econ 58(4):305–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Werf E (2008) Production functions for climate policy modeling: an empirical analysis. Energy Econ 30(6):2964–2979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vissing-Jørgensen A (2002) Limited asset market participation and the elasticity of intertemporal substitution. J Polit Econ 110(4):825–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been financed by Portuguese public funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., in the framework of the projects with reference UIDB/04105/2020, UIDB/05037/2020, and UID/MAT/00144/2019. The fourth author acknowledges the support from FCT through the Sabbatical Fellowship SFRH/BSAB/142986/2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Óscar Afonso.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Final good prices in the two sectors

From the maximization problem max π = Y − PDYD − PCYC, with \( Y={\left({\varsigma}_D{Y}_D^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}+{\varsigma}_C{Y}_C^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon -1}} \), the first-order condition with respect to YD

$$ \frac{\partial \pi }{\partial {Y}_D}=\frac{\varepsilon }{\varepsilon -1}{\left({\varsigma}_D{Y}_D^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}+{\varsigma}_C{Y}_C^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon -1}}\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }{\varsigma}_D{Y}_D^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }}-{P}_D=0 $$

reveals that the price of the final good in the D-Sector is,

$$ {P}_D={\left({\varsigma}_D{Y}_D^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}+{\varsigma}_C{Y}_C^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon -1}}{\varsigma}_D{Y}_D^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }}. $$

Similarly for the C-sector, from the first-order condition with respect to YC, we obtain

$$ {P}_C={\left({\varsigma}_D{Y}_D^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}+{\varsigma}_C{Y}_C^{\frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon }}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon -1}}{\varsigma}_C{Y}_C^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }}. $$

Finally, Eq. (4) is easily obtained

$$ \frac{P_C}{P_D}=\frac{\varsigma_C}{\varsigma_D}{\left(\frac{Y_C}{Y_D}\right)}^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }}. $$

Appendix 2. Inverse demand for labor derivation

Considering \( \mathit{\max}\ {\pi}_D={P}_D{Y}_D-{w}_D{L}_D-{\int}_0^{A_D}{q}_D(j){x}_D(j) dj \), where \( {Y}_D=\frac{L_D^{\alpha}\cdotp {R}^{\beta }}{1-\alpha -\beta }{\int}_0^{A_D}{x}_D{(j)}^{1-\alpha -\beta } dj \) (5), the first-order conditions yields

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\frac{\partial {\pi}_D}{\partial {L}_D}=\alpha {P}_D\frac{L_D^{\alpha -1}{R}^{\beta }}{1-\alpha -\beta }{\int}_0^{A_D}{x}_D{(j)}^{1-\alpha -\beta } dj-{w}_D\\ {}=\alpha \frac{P_D}{L_D}{Y}_D-{w}_D=0,\end{array}} $$

and thus \( {w}_D=\alpha \frac{P_D}{L_D}{Y}_D \);

$$ \frac{\partial {\pi}_D}{\partial {x}_D}={P}_D{L}_D^{\alpha }{R}^{\beta }{x}_D{(j)}^{-\alpha -\beta }-{q}_D(j)=0 $$

and thus \( {x}_D(j)={\left(\frac{P_D}{q_D(j)}{L}_D^{\alpha }{R}^{\beta}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }} \). Plugging the latter into the former, it results that

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}{w}_D=\alpha \frac{P_D}{L_D}\frac{L_D^{\alpha }{R}^{\beta }}{1-\alpha -\beta }{\int}_0^{A_D}{x}_D{(j)}^{1-\alpha -\beta } dj\\ {}=\alpha \frac{P_D}{L_D}\frac{L_D^{\alpha }{R}^{\beta }}{1-\alpha -\beta }{\int}_0^{A_D}{P}_D^{\frac{1-\alpha -\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}{q}_D{(j)}^{-\frac{1-\alpha -\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}{L}_D^{\frac{\alpha \left(1-\alpha -\beta \right)}{\alpha +\beta }}{R}^{\frac{ta\left(1-\alpha -\beta \right)}{\alpha +\beta }} dj\\ {}=\frac{\alpha }{1-\alpha -\beta }{P}_D^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}{q}_D{(i)}^{-\frac{1-\alpha -\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{L_D}{R}\right)}^{-\frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}.\end{array}} $$

Appendix 3. Relative price of the C-factor deduction

From (4) \( \frac{P_C}{P_D}=\frac{\varsigma_C}{\varsigma_D}{\left(\frac{Y_C}{Y_D}\right)}^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }} \), and bearing in mind (11) and (12), we obtain

$$ \frac{P_C}{P_D}=\frac{\varsigma_C}{\varsigma_D}{\left[\frac{\frac{A_C}{1-\alpha -\beta }{\left({P}_C^{\left(1-\alpha -\beta \right)}{L}_C^{\alpha }{K}^{\beta}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}}{\frac{A_D}{1-\alpha -\beta }{\left({P}_D^{\left(1-\alpha -\beta \right)}{L}_D^{\alpha }{R}^{\beta}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}}\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon }}. $$
$$ {\left(\frac{P_C}{P_D}\right)}^{\frac{\left(1-\alpha -\beta \right)+\varepsilon \left(\alpha +\beta \right)}{\alpha +\beta }}={\varsigma}^{\varepsilon }{\left(\frac{A_C}{A_D}\right)}^{-1}{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{-\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{-\frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }} $$

and, therefore, Eq. (17) is recovered

$$ \frac{P_C}{P_D}={\varsigma}^{\frac{\varepsilon \left(\alpha +\beta \right)}{\sigma }}{\left[{\left(\frac{A_C}{A_D}\right)}^{\alpha +\beta }{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\alpha }{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\beta}\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\sigma }}. $$

Appendix 4. Relative return on clean-skilled capital deduction

Combining Eqs. (13), (14), and (17) we get

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}W=\frac{w_C}{w_D}=\frac{\frac{\alpha }{1-\alpha -\beta }{P}_C^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}{L}_C^{\frac{-\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}{K}^{\frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}}{\frac{\alpha }{1-\alpha -\beta }{P}_D^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}{L}_D^{\frac{-\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}R\frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}\\ {}={\left(\frac{P_C}{P_D}\right)}^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\frac{-\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}\\ {}={\left[{\varsigma}^{-\varepsilon}\left(\frac{A_C}{A_D}\right){\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha +\beta \sigma}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\beta \left(1-\sigma \right)}{\alpha +\beta }}\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\sigma }}.\end{array}} $$

Appendix 5. Relative profitability of innovators in the C-sector deduction

Dividing Eq. (16) by (15) and combining with (17) we have

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\frac{\pi_C}{\pi_D}=\frac{\left(\alpha +\beta \right){P}_C^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{L_C}{K}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +\beta }}}{\left(\alpha +\beta \right){P}_D^{\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{L_D}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +\beta }}}\\ {}={\varsigma}^{\frac{\varepsilon }{\sigma }}{\left(\frac{A_C}{A_D}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha +\beta }{\alpha +\beta}\left(-\frac{1}{\sigma}\right)}{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha \left(\sigma -1\right)}{\alpha +\beta}\frac{1}{\sigma }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\beta \left(\sigma -1\right)}{\alpha +\beta}\frac{1}{\sigma }}\\ {}={\varsigma}^{\frac{\varepsilon }{\sigma }}{\left(\frac{A_C}{A_D}\right)}^{-\frac{1}{\sigma }}{\left[{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\alpha }{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\beta}\right]}^{\frac{\sigma -1}{\left(\alpha +\beta \right)\sigma }}.\end{array}} $$

Equation (19) is thus recovered.

Appendix 6. Directed technical change result

Solving Eq. (19) with respect to \( \frac{A_C}{A_D} \), yelds

$$ \frac{A_C}{A_D}={\varsigma}^{\varepsilon }{\left(\frac{\lambda_C}{\lambda_D}\frac{L_C^{-{\gamma}_{L_C}}}{L_D^{-{\gamma}_{L_D}}}\right)}^{\sigma }{\left[{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\alpha }{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\beta}\right]}^{\frac{\sigma -1}{\alpha +\beta }}, $$

which meets Eq. (22).

Appendix 7. Skill premium deduction with directed technical change

Substituting (22) into (18), we obtain

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}W=\frac{w_C}{w_D}={\left[{\varsigma}^{-\varepsilon}\left(\frac{A_C}{A_D}\right){\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha +\beta \sigma}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\beta \left(1-\sigma \right)}{\alpha +\beta }}\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\sigma }}\\ {}={\left[{\left(\frac{\lambda_C}{\lambda_D}\right)}^{\sigma }{\left(\frac{L_C^{-{\gamma}_{L_C}}}{L_D^{-{\gamma}_{L_D}}}\right)}^{\sigma }{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\frac{\alpha \left(\sigma -1\right)}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)}^{\frac{+\beta \sigma}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\beta \left(\sigma -1\right)}{\alpha +\beta }}{\left(\frac{K}{R}\right)}^{\frac{\beta \left(1-\sigma \right)}{\alpha +\beta }}\right]}^{-\frac{1}{\sigma }}\\ {}={\left[\left(\frac{\lambda_C}{\lambda_D}\right)\left(\frac{L_C^{-{\gamma}_{L_C}}}{L_D^{-{\gamma}_{L_D}}}\right)\left(\frac{L_C}{L_D}\right)\right]}^{-1}.\end{array}} $$

Equation (23) is thus deduced.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Afonso, Ó., Fonseca, L., Magalhães, M. et al. Directed technical change and environmental quality. Port Econ J 20, 71–97 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-020-00174-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-020-00174-4

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation