Evaluation of Effects of "Cash for Clunkers"-like programs on car markets and macroeconomic situation
|Název práce v češtině:|
|Název v anglickém jazyce:||Evaluation of Effects of "Cash for Clunkers"-like programs on car markets and macroeconomic situation|
|Klíčová slova anglicky:||Scrappage program, Czech Republic, Exports, Car Sales, ŠKODA|
|Akademický rok vypsání:||2014/2015|
|Typ práce:||bakalářská práce|
|Ústav:||Institut ekonomických studií (23-IES)|
|Vedoucí / školitel:||Ing. Vilém Semerák, M.A., Ph.D.|
|Řešitel:||skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem|
|Datum a čas obhajoby:||06.09.2016 00:00|
|Místo konání obhajoby:||IES|
|Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby:||27.07.2016|
|Datum proběhlé obhajoby:||06.09.2016|
|Oponenti:||RNDr. Michal Červinka, Ph.D.|
|Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce|
|After the financial crisis in 2007-08, governments all over the world tried using several policies in order to promote growth and stability for their economies. On July 1, 2009, the USA launched its policy “Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS)“, commonly known as “Cash for clunkers“. It was a program designed to boost car sales, by giving the US residents an economic incentive to swap their old and economically inefficient cars for brand new models, which were more fuel efficient as well as produced less CO2. In the same year, Germany tried to promote growth and stability using the same policy/program. However, this policy not only had an impact on the German economy, but on its neighbors‘ economies as well. It is interesting to determine if this policy’s implementation was beneficial or rather harmed the economy even further.
Although several papers presented research on the effects of the cash-for-clunkers policy, I will focus on the effects that the German policy had on the Czech economy with specialization on its output and employment level in the automobile industry. In my thesis, I will try to analyse how strongly car sales were impacted by the policy, as well as determine if some of the hypotheses are valid.
1. How did the output level of Germany and the Czech Republic changed due to the introduction of the car scrappage program?
2. What effect did the car scrappage program have on the labour market? (If possible to evaluate)
3. Can we say that the program was a success or rather a failure in accomplishing its goals?
2. Literature Review
3. Brief overview of car sales before and after the economic crisis (2005-2011) via Input Ouput data analysis
4. Methodology and Model
5. Data analysis and Empirical evidence
6. Outcomes and Effects
1. Busse, Meghan, Jorge Silva-Risso, and Florian Zettelmeyer, “$1,000 Cash Back: The Pass-Through of Auto Manufacture Promotions,” The American Economic Review, September 2006, 96 (4), 1253–1253.
2. Hastings, Justine and Ebonya Washington, “The First of the Month Effect: Consumer Behavior and Store Responses,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, May 2010, 2 (2), 142–162.
3. Kaul, Ashok, Gregor Pfeifer, and Stefan Witte. "The Incidence of Cash for Clunkers:." Working Paper Series 68 (April 2012): n. pag. University of Zurich, Apr. 2012. Web. May 2015.<http://www.econ.uzh.ch/static/wp/econwp068.pdf>.
4. Kavalec, Chris and Winardi Setiawan, “An analysis of accelerated vehicle retirement programs using a discrete choice personal vehicle model,” Transport Policy, 1997, 4 (2), 95–107.
5. Knittel, Christopher R., “The Implied Cost of Carbon Dioxide Under the Cash for Clunkers Program,” 2009. Working Paper, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
6. Li, Shanjun, Joshua Linn, and Elisheba Spiller, “Evaluating ’Cash-for-Clunkers’: Program Effect on Auto Sales, Jobs, and the Environment,” 2010. Working Paper, Charles H. Dyson Scool of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.
7. Licandro, Omar and Antonio R. Sampayo, “The Effects of Replacement Schemes on Car Sales: The Spanish Case,” Investigaciones Economicas, May 2006, 30 (2), 239–282.
8. Sallee, James M., “The Surprising Incidence of Tax Credits for the Toyota Prius,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, May 2011, 3 (2), 189–219.