Messages

Published May 3, 2014 9:03 PM
There will be two parts in the exam, one "essay" part and one "model-based" part. Both parts count equally, but you need to pass both in order to pass the exam.
In the essay, we expect that the form follows a clear logical structure and that the content is informed by what you have learned in the course. We emphasize that, just like in a good newspaper commentary, it is OK to concentrate on a specific aspect of a larger problem or to give an interpretative overview of the problem's main components. Our aim is not to test whether you can memorize a lot of things and bring them to paper in a short amount of time, but to test whether you have control of the subject matter and can communicate clearly what you have understood. The same holds for the "model-based" part. For example, while setting up a optimization problem and solving for the first-order is neces...
Published May 3, 2014 9:00 PM
Published Apr. 30, 2014 12:17 PM

Previous exams can be found at

http://www.sv.uio.no/econ/studier/admin/eksamen/tidligere-eksamensoppgaver/eksamensoppgaver%20master/econ4910/

Eivind

Published Apr. 29, 2014 4:42 PM
Published Apr. 9, 2014 9:12 PM

Hei, 

the link to the Nyborg and Rege (2003) paper was wrong, it is now corrected (thanks Ingrid!). Also, here is a link to a good commentary in nature on the CBA of climate change:

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-improve-economic-models-of-climate-change-1.14991?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140410

God p?ske! Florian

Published Apr. 7, 2014 10:49 AM

After some problems, the evaluation forms are now supposed to be open.

https://nettskjema.uio.no/answer/59031.html

Published Apr. 4, 2014 12:16 PM

Slides for the next two lectures (combined) are uploaded. Please read also Karine Nyborg's recent Memorandum (link below) which fits spot-on to the next lecture. See you next week, Florian

http://www.sv.uio.no/econ/english/research/memorandum/2014/memo082014.html

Published Apr. 1, 2014 1:46 PM

Mid-term evaluation.You are invited to comment on all the lecturers and seminar leaders in this course. The evaluation form is found in nettskjema: https://nettskjema.uio.no/answer/59031.html

 

The evaluation results will be discussed by the professor responsible for the courses, the lecturers, and student representatives. Your answers are anonymous.

Published Mar. 31, 2014 1:46 PM

Next week's seminar sessions will be held by Torben Mideksa, due to some unforeseen events. Be nice!

Eivind

Published Mar. 25, 2014 1:44 PM

There is a mistake in the solution for seminar 4.

In problem 1 (b), the tax that achieves x* and y^0 is NOT t = D'(x*). It is t = b'(y^0) - c'(x*), where y^0 is uniquely defined by F'(x* + y^0) = b'(y^0).

Similarly, the subsidy is NOT s = -D'(x*)dx/dy, but s = b'(y) - F'(x*+y), with y uniquely defined from the condition F'(x* + y) = c'(x*).

With the RPS, the FOC wrt x is F'(x* + y) = c'(x*) + lambda*alpha. Compare this with the FOX wrt x under a subsidy. Since lambda, alpha > 0, and F'' < 0, y is closer to y^0 with an RPS than with a subsidy.

Eivind

Published Mar. 14, 2014 9:43 AM

Note that seminar 4 has been postponed to March 24 and 25, because of the "Aktualitetsuke". Apologize for the late notice.

Eivind

Published Mar. 4, 2014 5:48 PM

Someone at the monday seminar asked whether the FOC with respect to 'a_i' shouldn't also be part of the solution in P2 (d). The answer is yes, in principle, it should. Both conditions are necessary for the decision on x_i for the individual firm.

However (as one of you asked about), in P2 (e), we do not use this condition as a constraint to determine the optimal policy, because it is already taken care of when N*c(a,y) is part of the minimization problem.

Sorry about the short and messy section on optimal control theory. We will get some practice on this in seminar 4.

Eivind

Published Feb. 24, 2014 8:48 PM

The problem set for seminar 3 is out.

Eivind

Published Feb. 11, 2014 6:52 PM

I have uploaded a supplementary note for seminar 2, which is more compact than Torben's solution, and has more diagrams.

There was a question about why NB(0) is not part of the solution when using the geometric method to calculate total welfare in optimum (problem 2 (b)), which is answered in footnote 1.

Eivind

Published Feb. 4, 2014 3:46 PM

Slides for lecture 4 are on the web. There is a little exercise in it. Try to think about how you would solve the question asked (we will also do so together tomorrow). Best, Florian

Published Feb. 4, 2014 1:03 PM

I have prepared a note with some additional solutions for seminar 1, specifically problem 1 (a) and (d). You can find it under "Seminars".

Eivind

Published Jan. 22, 2014 8:34 PM
Published Jan. 7, 2014 8:29 PM

Welcome to this year's environmental economics course, which starts next week! The slides for the first lecture have been posted under the heading "Lecture materials".

Looking forward to the course, Florian