On the 24-26th of May 2018, Cees Withagen, Eric Strobl and myself are organizing again the environmental economics part of the annual IPAG conference ISEFI in Paris, France. Keynote speakers are Robert Pindyck and Rick van der Ploeg.

We would be delighted if you take part in this event. More information can be obtained here:


March 4, 2018: Submission deadline (full papers, PDF files)

March 25, 2018: Notification of acceptance/rejection

April 22, 2018: Registration deadline

May 24-26, 2018: Symposium event

If you have any questions or thoughts, please do not hesitate to drop me a line on


13 - SCHUMACHER Ingmar

I am one of the candidates for the municipality elections in Niederanven that are to be held on the 8th of October 2017. I am running for the LSAP and our programme can be downloaded here. So who am I, why am I a candidate and what are my main objectives?

Read More

I am tired of being quiet. For weeks now I have been reading about Trump, le Pen, Brexit, ignorant politicians who breed hatred, racism, about election campaigns that foster right-wing views and self-interest politicians. I have been reading about how international cooperations are blamed for poor national decision taking, and I have been reading about how countries can become great again if only they look at their self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

I wonder how one can be so stupid as to confuse money with greatness. The US was not accepted as a world leader because it was rich, but because it was open to everyone, provided opportunities regardless of gender, color and origin. The US, to a large part, was a haven for those forgotten souls out of other parts of the world that tried to find a new and good life. These ideals seems to be vanishing, and both dumb leaders, populism and uninformed press play a major role. Liberté, égalité and fraternité are those values that are supposed to represent the French, but nearly electing someone like le Pen as their leader makes one seriously doubt whether France will in future continue to be represented by those important three words.

And I have kept quiet. I have kept quiet as I believed that it is a mistake to provide a further platform to these idiots out there that have been elected to represent the apparent interests of voters. It is, however, becoming more and more clear that these `interests’ will eventually only lead to seggregation, violence, further hatred, wars, conflicts, inequality and further poverty (c.f. Trumps views on trade or the dumb Brexit vote).

Yet being quiet in the face of these unfortunate, self-interested, dumb and ignorant political decision-takers only gives them more attention than they deserve. I fully believe that the only choice that we have to minimize their influence is to show how their decisions are frankly out of touch with reality, out of their voters’ interests, and harm the poor, the forgotten, the international relations and the future of the country that they are supposed to represent. Trump is bashing those values that made the US a great country, and his “make America great again” slogan has, as of now, only made his own pockets great again. It is unfortunate that there are still many people out there who believe in his views but it is also my sincere opinion that, with enough information and effort, these people will come to see that there are alternatives without violence and hatred.

So what can we do?

I believe that everyone needs to question very carefully what is written. Information is the key. If you become scared of immigrants, Christians, Moslems or Buddhists, then go and meet some. Try to find out for yourself. Don’t just take the examples from a couple of stories as the general rule. Learn for yourself. Yes it takes time. But every bit of hatred that you feel the need to show to someone else is worth a couple of minutes of your time in order to see whether this hatred is necessary and useful.

Hatred, violence, and radical politicial positions that are against some indefensive minority will not make anyone better off. We all know that in our hearts. Some of us may be angry. Many of us feel that our lives could be better. Few us honestly believe that their situation is due to immigrants or could be improved through voting for some radical parties.

We hence need to make sure that there is more redistribution in society towards the poor and forgotten. No one needs a couple of millions on the bank account. No one truly needs a Ferrari or Hermes bag or the own private jet. Trump’s approach to politics however does promote exactly this. There is no way that someone like him can be allowed to complete his presidential term, or even have a second one. Similarly, if we do not want to have wars in Europe again, and if we want to promote the interests of the poor and those that need their interests to be represented, then we must fight those views that are against equality, society and a good life together. Being quiet is a mistake. I understood this now.

This is a call to everyone in society to stand up again, to cooperate, to promote values that help achieve common goals and united interests. Don’t be quiet.


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:

2) registration will be open from 1st September

3) conference will be 9-11 November

For further information look at 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.

Read More

I have a new working paper, co-authored with Guy Meunier from INRA in Paris, with the long but clear title “The importance of considering optimal government policy when social norms matter for the private provision of public goods“. In the social norms literature that is concerned with the private provision of public goods we always see some arguments for policy interventions. However, these policy interventions are introduced as an exogenous tool void of any welfare analysis. As a result of these exogenous policies the literature focused on whether these policies crowd out or crowd in private contributions. Much of the experimental literature has thus focused also on crowding in our crowding out. Even the fashionable topic of nudging is concerned with this. However, it should be clear that the usefulness of a policy should not be measured based on whether or not a policy crowds in or out private contributions. Instead, the yardstick should be a question of optimality – in some cases a policy maker may want to crowd in contributions, in others (s)he may crowd out contributions. As long as we know that the policy choice is an optimal one, then we frankly shouldn’t care whether or not there is crowding in or out! This is the starting point for our paper.

In the paper we develop quite a few results, but one of the most important ones is that an optimal policy not necessarily induces the full contribution equilibrium, even if that full contribution equilibrium is otherwise welfare maximizing. Thus, we show that the original argument used in the literature, namely that a policy should induce the full contribution equilibrium, is not correct once one takes an optimal policy into account. This, obviously, has many implications for policy interventions when social norms and public goods interact. We also discuss social traps, government debt, path dependency, multiplicity of equilibria and the importance of parameter stability.

The abstract:

Social pressure can help overcome the free rider problem associated with public good provision. In the social norms literature concerned with the private provision of public goods there seems to be an implicit belief that it is best to have all agents adhere to the `good’ social norm. We challenge this view and study optimal government policy in a reference model (Rege, 2004) of public good provision and social approval in a dynamic setting. We discuss the problem with the standard crowding in and out argument and analyze the relationship with Pigouvian taxes. We show that even if complete adherence to the social norm maximizes social welfare it is by no means necessarily optimal to push society towards it. We stress the different roles of the social externality and the public good problem. We discuss the role of the cost of public funds and show how it can create path dependency, multiplicity of optimal equilibria and optimal paths, and discuss the role of parameter instability. We argue that extreme care must be taken when formulating policies and subsequent results will fully depend on this formulation.

Paper link: “The importance of considering optimal government policy when social norms matter for the private provision of public goods

Enjoy reading the paper, and comments are obviously warmly welcome!


Some information on my co-author: Guy Meunier is a Senior Research Fellow at the French Agricultural Research Institute (INRA), and belongs to the Food and Social Sciences Unit (ALISS). He is an Associated Researcher at the Department of Economics of the Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, and a member of the steering committee of the Chair Energy & Prosperity. His articles have been published, among many others, in the Journal of Public Economic Theory, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Resource and Energy Economics, and the Review of Industrial Organization.


Together with a co-author of mine, Martin Henseler from the Universite du Havre, France, I have a new working paper entitled “The impact of temperature on production factors”. We believe that the results significantly update previous studies on the impact of climatic variables on production factors and GDP growth and help policy makers to more clearly understand which impacts from climatic changes are likely to matter most in the future. Furthermore, these results should help to more carefully calibrate the damage functions in integrated assessment models.

Here is the abstract:

In a recent econometric study Burke et al. (2015) find that temperature affects economic growth non-linearly. We extend their analysis by investigating the influence of temperature on the main components of production, namely total factor productivity, capital stock and employment. Our panel dataset includes observations on 103 countries for the period 1961-2010. We confirm Burke et al. (2015) assumption that the main impacts of temperature arise in total factor productivity, which is significantly negatively affected for high levels of temperature. Neither capital nor employment seem to be affected by temperature. However, we find that temperature impacts rich and poor differently, with the poor being significantly more strongly impacted for higher temperature levels. These results hold across all components of production. We find these results to be robust across different cutoff points dividing the rich and poor samples, continue to hold if we use temperature anomaly instead of temperature, and also apply for further robustness exercises. The findings provide empirical evidence for negative impacts of temperature on poor countries and support the political and scientific discussions of mitigation policies and climate change impacts.

Here is the link to the paper

%d bloggers like this: