arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2509.03926

National social cost of carbon: An application of FUND

Abstract

This paper presents a refined country-level integrated assessment model, FUND 3.9n, that extends the regional FUND 3.9 framework by incorporating sector-specific climate impact functions and parametric uncertainty analysis for 198 individual countries. The model enables estimation of the national social cost of carbon (NSCC), capturing heterogeneity across nations from economic structure, climate sensitivity, and population exposure. Our results demonstrate that both the NSCC and the global sum estimates are highly sensitive to damage specifications and preference parameters, including the pure rate of time preference and relative risk aversion. Compared to aggregated single-sector approaches, the disaggregated model with uncertainty yields higher values of the NSCC for low- and middle-income countries. The paper contributes to the literature by quantifying how sector-specific vulnerabilities and stochastic variability amplify climate damages and reshape global equity in the distribution of the NSCC. The NSCCs derived from our model offer policy-relevant metrics for adaptation planning, mitigation target setting, and equitable burden-sharing in international climate negotiations. This approach bridges the gap between globally harmonized carbon pricing and nationally differentiated climate impacts, providing a theoretically grounded and empirically rich framework for future climate policy design.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

In Chang Hwang, Richard S. J. Tol. 2025-09-04. National social cost of carbon: An application of FUND. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03926

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN