Boon or bane? On productivity and environmental regulation

As climate change has gained more attention in the last decade, effects of environmental regulation on productivity are important to design green tax reforms. This study examines the impacts of environmental taxes and spillovers on technical efficiency, using data on Central European manufacturing firms, from 2009 to 2017. The results highlight strong effects of environmental taxation on productivity. Besides, downstream energy taxation does not affect productivity, while upstream taxes decrease technical efficiency. Downstream pollution taxation decreases productivity, whereas upstream taxation spurs technical efficiency. This study contributes to the literature by investigating heterogeneous tax effects across industries, involving tax spillovers and considering endogeneity issues.

Picking Our Environmental Battles: Removal of Harmful Subsidies or Carbon Taxation?

In this paper, we compare the effects of removing harmful fossil fuel subsidies with the replacement of the energy taxation by a carbon tax in Portugal. Since energy taxes focus on the energy content of the different energy products eliminating these provisions only brings their prices in line with their energy content. On the other hand, replacing the energy tax system with a tax on the emissions content of the energy products aligns the fossil fuel prices with their emissions content. We show that while replacing the energy with a carbon tax is a policy of a magnitude about eight times as large as the removal of the harmful subsidies, the effects of emissions are twenty times larger and the adverse economic and distributional effects only about twice as large. Accordingly, replacing the energy tax with a carbon tax is a much more cost-effective way of reducing emissions. This may suggest that focusing on the removal of harmful fossil fuel subsidies may be an environmental red herring.

Energy taxation, subsidy removal and poverty in Mexico

Equity and efficiency are crucial issues behind any tax reform, but they are particularly relevant in countries with high inequality and large shares of poverty. This paper provides a comprehensive socio-economic empirical assessment of Mexico's proposed (and partially implemented) tax reforms in the energy domain, and of a hypothetical partial removal of existing electricity subsidies. Using a rich household income and expenditure survey within the context of a demand system adjustment of non-durable goods, the article provides the public-revenue, environmental and distributional impacts from the simulation of different combinations of energy taxation, subsidy-removal and distributive offsets. The paper also provides detailed ex-ante evidence on the effects of compensatory devices that may contribute to the successful implementation of energy reform packages and significant poverty alleviation in Mexico.

Evaluation and Suggestions for Rational Energy Tax Policy in South Korea

Energy taxation is used globally as a means of energy policy. Energy tax plays an important role as a driving force for the conversion to environmentally friendly energy. The basic tax principles considered in the design of energy taxation increases the efficiency of policy instruments. The purpose of this study is to evaluate South Korea’s energy taxation based on tax principles, namely, equity, efficiency, simplicity, flexibility, and accountability and suggest directions for improvement. This study applied a methodology that provides policy implications, such as reviewing existing literature and comparing energy taxes. Results of this study show that South Korea’s energy taxation is negative in terms of equity, simplicity, and accountability. South Korea’s current energy tax is regressive to income classes and complex tax structures and it does not objectively measure the impact of energy taxation. However, energy taxation is evaluated positively in terms of efficiency and flexibility because it meets the greenhouse gas reduction policy and operates a flexible tax rate. The results of this analysis provide policy implications for reorganizing South Korea’s energy taxation.