Adaptive Green Subsidy Design Under Carbon Border Adjustments—A Stochastic Stackelberg Differential Game with Bayesian Learning About Foreign Compliance Standards, with Application to Indian Manufacturing Exports
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55578/jedip.2605.006Keywords:
climate trade nexus., developing economies, Carbon border adjustment, green industrial policyAbstract
The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism imposes a levy on the embedded emissions of imports in covered sectors. Verification rules, the trajectory of the foreign carbon price, and the embedded emissions reference are still moving targets that exporting economies cannot perfectly forecast. Developing economies that export to the European Union face a strategic question with operational consequences. Should the home government subsidise emissions abatement at home so that domestic exporters preserve market access without paying the levy abroad, and if so, how should the subsidy schedule respond to learning about how the levy itself will evolve. We pose the problem as a continuous time Stackelberg differential game between a government and a continuum of heterogeneous exporting firms. The government holds a Bayesian prior over the path of the foreign carbon price and updates the prior as new policy signals arrive. Firms differ in baseline emissions intensity and choose abatement investment to maximize expected discounted profit. We prove existence and uniqueness of the firm best response, characterize it through a three-region threshold rule that distinguishes firms that abate fully, firms that target the embedded emissions reference exactly, and firms that abate partially while paying a residual levy. We then derive the optimal subsidy schedule as a function of the government’s posterior belief and demonstrate that the schedule is increasing in the posterior expected foreign carbon price and convex in the posterior variance, which produces a precautionary subsidy channel. A numerical study calibrated to Indian steel exports to the European Union shows that adaptive subsidies recover most of the welfare loss caused by border exposure when the prior on foreign standards is reasonably informative, and roughly half of the loss under a diffuse prior. Static policies, computed under a point estimate of the foreign carbon price, leave substantial welfare on the table because they cannot respond to posterior shifts. The framework speaks to industrial policy design in any open economy whose export structure is exposed to unilaterally evolving foreign environmental standards.
References
[1] European Commission. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/956 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Official Journal of the European Union, L 130, 52–104.
[2] World Bank. (2023). Trade implications of the European Union carbon border adjustment mechanism: Implications for emerging economies (Technical report). World Bank.
[3] Council on Energy, Environment and Water. (2023). The European Union carbon border adjustment mechanism: Implications for India (Technical report). Council on Energy, Environment and Water.
[4] Mehling, M. A., van Asselt, H., Das, K., Droege, S., & Verkuijl, C. (2019). Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. American Journal of International Law, *113*(3), 433–481.
[5] Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C., & Munnings, C. (2019). Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: Lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature (Technical report). International Institute for Sustainable Development.
[6] Böhringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K. E., & Rutherford, T. F. (2022). Border carbon adjustments: New evidence on welfare and competitiveness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, *115*, Article 102680.
[7] Ismer, R., & Neuhoff, K. (2007). Border tax adjustment: A feasible way to support stringent emission trading. European Journal of Law and Economics, *24*(2), 137–164.
[8] Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hemous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, *102*(1), 131–166.
[9] Popp, D. (2019). Environmental policy and innovation: A decade of research. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, *13*(3-4), 265–337.
[10] Rodrik, D. (2014). Green industrial policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, *30*(3), 469–491.
[11] Mazzucato, M. (2018). The value of everything: Making and taking in the global economy. Allen Lane.
[12] Juhasz, R., Lane, N., & Rodrik, D. (2024). The new economics of industrial policy. Annual Review of Economics, *16*, 213–242.
[13] Kelly, D. L., & Kolstad, C. D. (1999). Bayesian learning, growth, and pollution. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, *23*(4), 491–518.
[14] Karp, L., & Zhang, J. (2006). Regulation with anticipated learning about environmental damages. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, *51*(3), 259–279.
[15] Lemoine, D., & Traeger, C. P. (2016). Economics of tipping the climate dominoes. Nature Climate Change, *6*, 514–519.
[16] Grubb, M., Jordan, N. D., Hertwich, E., Neuhoff, K., Das, K., & Bandyopadhyay, K. R. (2022). Carbon leakage, consumption, and trade (Technical report). University College London.
[17] Pindyck, R. S. (2007). Uncertainty in environmental economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, *1*(1), 45–65.
[18] Weitzman, M. L. (2009). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics, *91*(1), 1–19.
[19] Aghion, P., Dechelezpèrère, A., Hémous, D., Martin, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry. Journal of Political Economy, *124*(1), 1–51.
[20] Dockner, E. J., Jørgensen, S., Long, N. V., & Sorger, G. (2000). Differential games in economics and management science. Cambridge University Press.
[21] Long, N. V. (2010). Differential games and resources. Annual Review of Resource Economics, *2*, 261–283.
[22] Bensoussan, A., Sung, K. H., Yam, S. C. P., & Yung, S. P. (2013). Linear quadratic mean field Stackelberg games with state and control delays. SIAM.
[23] Liptser, R. S., & Shiryaev, A. N. (2001). Statistics of random processes I: General theory (2nd ed.). Springer.
[24] Cogley, T., Colacito, R., Hansen, L. P., & Sargent, T. J. (2008). Robustness and US monetary policy experimentation. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, *40*(8), 1599–1623.
[25] Hansen, L. P., & Sargent, T. J. (2008). Robustness. Princeton University Press.
[26] Srivastava, D. K., & Trehan, R. (2018). Marginal cost of public funds in India: Estimates for selected indirect taxes. Journal of Public Economic Theory, *20*(3), 342–361.
[27] Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics: Explaining economic policy. MIT Press.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Janardan Behera (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.