Asymmetric price responses and the underlying energy demand trend: are they substitutes or complements? Evidence from modelling OECD aggregate energy demand

Olutomi I. Adeyemi, David C. Broadstock, Mona Chitnis, Lester C. Hunt, Guy Judge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A number of energy demand studies have considered the importance of modelling Asymmetric Price Responses (APR), for example, the often-cited work of Gately and Huntington (2002). Griffin and Schulman (2005) questioned the asymmetric approach arguing that this is only capturing energy saving technical progress. Huntington (2006), however, showed that for whole economy aggregate energy and oil demand there is a role statistically for both APR and exogenous energy saving technical change. In a separate strand of the literature the idea of the Underlying Energy Demand Trend (UEDT) has been developed, see for example Hunt et al. (2003a and 2003b) and Dimitropoulos et al. (2005). They argue that it is important, in time series energy demand models, to allow for stochastic trends (or UEDTs) based upon the structural time series/dynamic regression methodology recommended by Harvey (1989, 1997). This paper attempts to bring these strands of the literature together by conducting tests for the UEDT and APR in energy demand models within both a panel context (consistent with the Huntington, 2006 approach) and the structural time series modelling framework. A set of tests across a range of specifications using time-series and panel data are therefore undertaken in order to ascertain whether energy saving technical change (or the more general UEDT) and APR are substitutes for each other when modelling energy demand or whether they are actually picking up different influences and are therefore complements. Using annual whole economy data for 17 OECD countries over the period 1960 – 2004 the results suggest that in general the UEDT and ARP are complementary estimation methodologies when modelling aggregate energy demand. It is argued therefore that energy demand modellers should not assume at the outset that one method is superior to the other. Moreover, wherever possible, a general model (be it in a time series or panel context) that includes a ‘non linear UEDT’ and APR should be initially estimated, and only if accepted by the data should symmetry and/or a more restrictive UEDT be imposed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1157-1164
Number of pages8
JournalEnergy Economics
Volume32
Issue number5
Early online date10 Apr 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2010

Fingerprint

Time series
Energy conservation
Price response
Energy demand
Substitute
Modeling
Specifications

Keywords

  • energy demand
  • OECD
  • asymmetric price responses
  • underlying energy demand trend

Cite this

Asymmetric price responses and the underlying energy demand trend : are they substitutes or complements? Evidence from modelling OECD aggregate energy demand. / Adeyemi, Olutomi I.; Broadstock, David C.; Chitnis, Mona; Hunt, Lester C.; Judge, Guy.

In: Energy Economics, Vol. 32, No. 5, 09.2010, p. 1157-1164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Adeyemi, Olutomi I. ; Broadstock, David C. ; Chitnis, Mona ; Hunt, Lester C. ; Judge, Guy. / Asymmetric price responses and the underlying energy demand trend : are they substitutes or complements? Evidence from modelling OECD aggregate energy demand. In: Energy Economics. 2010 ; Vol. 32, No. 5. pp. 1157-1164.
@article{031e9c1fb9a34ef7bed97b03a35675f8,
title = "Asymmetric price responses and the underlying energy demand trend: are they substitutes or complements? Evidence from modelling OECD aggregate energy demand",
abstract = "A number of energy demand studies have considered the importance of modelling Asymmetric Price Responses (APR), for example, the often-cited work of Gately and Huntington (2002). Griffin and Schulman (2005) questioned the asymmetric approach arguing that this is only capturing energy saving technical progress. Huntington (2006), however, showed that for whole economy aggregate energy and oil demand there is a role statistically for both APR and exogenous energy saving technical change. In a separate strand of the literature the idea of the Underlying Energy Demand Trend (UEDT) has been developed, see for example Hunt et al. (2003a and 2003b) and Dimitropoulos et al. (2005). They argue that it is important, in time series energy demand models, to allow for stochastic trends (or UEDTs) based upon the structural time series/dynamic regression methodology recommended by Harvey (1989, 1997). This paper attempts to bring these strands of the literature together by conducting tests for the UEDT and APR in energy demand models within both a panel context (consistent with the Huntington, 2006 approach) and the structural time series modelling framework. A set of tests across a range of specifications using time-series and panel data are therefore undertaken in order to ascertain whether energy saving technical change (or the more general UEDT) and APR are substitutes for each other when modelling energy demand or whether they are actually picking up different influences and are therefore complements. Using annual whole economy data for 17 OECD countries over the period 1960 – 2004 the results suggest that in general the UEDT and ARP are complementary estimation methodologies when modelling aggregate energy demand. It is argued therefore that energy demand modellers should not assume at the outset that one method is superior to the other. Moreover, wherever possible, a general model (be it in a time series or panel context) that includes a ‘non linear UEDT’ and APR should be initially estimated, and only if accepted by the data should symmetry and/or a more restrictive UEDT be imposed.",
keywords = "energy demand, OECD, asymmetric price responses, underlying energy demand trend",
author = "Adeyemi, {Olutomi I.} and Broadstock, {David C.} and Mona Chitnis and Hunt, {Lester C.} and Guy Judge",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.eneco.2010.04.003",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "1157--1164",
journal = "Energy Economics",
issn = "0140-9883",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Asymmetric price responses and the underlying energy demand trend

T2 - are they substitutes or complements? Evidence from modelling OECD aggregate energy demand

AU - Adeyemi, Olutomi I.

AU - Broadstock, David C.

AU - Chitnis, Mona

AU - Hunt, Lester C.

AU - Judge, Guy

PY - 2010/9

Y1 - 2010/9

N2 - A number of energy demand studies have considered the importance of modelling Asymmetric Price Responses (APR), for example, the often-cited work of Gately and Huntington (2002). Griffin and Schulman (2005) questioned the asymmetric approach arguing that this is only capturing energy saving technical progress. Huntington (2006), however, showed that for whole economy aggregate energy and oil demand there is a role statistically for both APR and exogenous energy saving technical change. In a separate strand of the literature the idea of the Underlying Energy Demand Trend (UEDT) has been developed, see for example Hunt et al. (2003a and 2003b) and Dimitropoulos et al. (2005). They argue that it is important, in time series energy demand models, to allow for stochastic trends (or UEDTs) based upon the structural time series/dynamic regression methodology recommended by Harvey (1989, 1997). This paper attempts to bring these strands of the literature together by conducting tests for the UEDT and APR in energy demand models within both a panel context (consistent with the Huntington, 2006 approach) and the structural time series modelling framework. A set of tests across a range of specifications using time-series and panel data are therefore undertaken in order to ascertain whether energy saving technical change (or the more general UEDT) and APR are substitutes for each other when modelling energy demand or whether they are actually picking up different influences and are therefore complements. Using annual whole economy data for 17 OECD countries over the period 1960 – 2004 the results suggest that in general the UEDT and ARP are complementary estimation methodologies when modelling aggregate energy demand. It is argued therefore that energy demand modellers should not assume at the outset that one method is superior to the other. Moreover, wherever possible, a general model (be it in a time series or panel context) that includes a ‘non linear UEDT’ and APR should be initially estimated, and only if accepted by the data should symmetry and/or a more restrictive UEDT be imposed.

AB - A number of energy demand studies have considered the importance of modelling Asymmetric Price Responses (APR), for example, the often-cited work of Gately and Huntington (2002). Griffin and Schulman (2005) questioned the asymmetric approach arguing that this is only capturing energy saving technical progress. Huntington (2006), however, showed that for whole economy aggregate energy and oil demand there is a role statistically for both APR and exogenous energy saving technical change. In a separate strand of the literature the idea of the Underlying Energy Demand Trend (UEDT) has been developed, see for example Hunt et al. (2003a and 2003b) and Dimitropoulos et al. (2005). They argue that it is important, in time series energy demand models, to allow for stochastic trends (or UEDTs) based upon the structural time series/dynamic regression methodology recommended by Harvey (1989, 1997). This paper attempts to bring these strands of the literature together by conducting tests for the UEDT and APR in energy demand models within both a panel context (consistent with the Huntington, 2006 approach) and the structural time series modelling framework. A set of tests across a range of specifications using time-series and panel data are therefore undertaken in order to ascertain whether energy saving technical change (or the more general UEDT) and APR are substitutes for each other when modelling energy demand or whether they are actually picking up different influences and are therefore complements. Using annual whole economy data for 17 OECD countries over the period 1960 – 2004 the results suggest that in general the UEDT and ARP are complementary estimation methodologies when modelling aggregate energy demand. It is argued therefore that energy demand modellers should not assume at the outset that one method is superior to the other. Moreover, wherever possible, a general model (be it in a time series or panel context) that includes a ‘non linear UEDT’ and APR should be initially estimated, and only if accepted by the data should symmetry and/or a more restrictive UEDT be imposed.

KW - energy demand

KW - OECD

KW - asymmetric price responses

KW - underlying energy demand trend

U2 - 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.eneco.2010.04.003

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 1157

EP - 1164

JO - Energy Economics

JF - Energy Economics

SN - 0140-9883

IS - 5

ER -