德国环境税改革:欧洲比较影响的差异分析

Daniel Kühnhenrich
{"title":"德国环境税改革:欧洲比较影响的差异分析","authors":"Daniel Kühnhenrich","doi":"10.1007/s10018-023-00375-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1998, the red-green Schröder government implemented the Environmental Tax Reform (ETR), raising taxes on petrol, diesel, natural gas and heating oil and introducing a new duty on electricity in Germany. At the same time, it cut non-wage labour costs by reducing public pension contributions. The goal was to achieve Germany’s Kyoto Protocol emissions targets and to reduce a level of unemployment unprecedented since World War II while avoiding the burden on the public budget through revenue recycling. Employing microdata from household budget surveys of 1998 and 2003, this article analyses whether increased duties on motor fuels and electricity lead to a substantial reduction in households’ consumption of these goods. Considering the ETR as a natural experiment, it uses the difference-in-differences approach in a European context with Germany as the treatment group and Italy, Spain and the UK as the control group. Ordinary least square regressions reveal that motor fuel demand is price inelastic, while electricity consumption increased despite the substantial rise in prices. Quartile regressions show that the effect of the motor fuel tax is slightly higher at the bottom than at the upper tail of the distribution supporting the notion that low-level consumers are more likely to find alternative substitutes.","PeriodicalId":46150,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The German Environmental Tax Reform: a difference-in-differences analysis of its impacts in European comparison\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Kühnhenrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10018-023-00375-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In 1998, the red-green Schröder government implemented the Environmental Tax Reform (ETR), raising taxes on petrol, diesel, natural gas and heating oil and introducing a new duty on electricity in Germany. At the same time, it cut non-wage labour costs by reducing public pension contributions. The goal was to achieve Germany’s Kyoto Protocol emissions targets and to reduce a level of unemployment unprecedented since World War II while avoiding the burden on the public budget through revenue recycling. Employing microdata from household budget surveys of 1998 and 2003, this article analyses whether increased duties on motor fuels and electricity lead to a substantial reduction in households’ consumption of these goods. Considering the ETR as a natural experiment, it uses the difference-in-differences approach in a European context with Germany as the treatment group and Italy, Spain and the UK as the control group. Ordinary least square regressions reveal that motor fuel demand is price inelastic, while electricity consumption increased despite the substantial rise in prices. Quartile regressions show that the effect of the motor fuel tax is slightly higher at the bottom than at the upper tail of the distribution supporting the notion that low-level consumers are more likely to find alternative substitutes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-023-00375-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-023-00375-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1998年,红绿Schröder政府实施了环境税改革(ETR),提高了汽油、柴油、天然气和取暖油的税收,并在德国引入了新的电力税。与此同时,它通过减少公共养老金缴款来削减非工资劳动力成本。其目标是实现德国《京都议定书》(Kyoto Protocol)的排放目标,降低二战以来前所未有的失业率,同时通过收入回收避免给公共预算带来负担。本文采用1998年和2003年家庭预算调查的微观数据,分析了汽车燃料和电力关税的增加是否会导致家庭对这些商品的消费大幅减少。考虑到ETR是一项自然实验,它在欧洲背景下使用差异中的差异方法,以德国为治疗组,意大利、西班牙和英国为对照组。普通最小二乘回归显示,汽车燃料需求是价格无弹性的,而尽管价格大幅上涨,但电力消耗仍在增加。四分位数回归显示,汽车燃油税对底部的影响略高于分布的上尾,这支持了低水平消费者更有可能找到替代替代品的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The German Environmental Tax Reform: a difference-in-differences analysis of its impacts in European comparison
Abstract In 1998, the red-green Schröder government implemented the Environmental Tax Reform (ETR), raising taxes on petrol, diesel, natural gas and heating oil and introducing a new duty on electricity in Germany. At the same time, it cut non-wage labour costs by reducing public pension contributions. The goal was to achieve Germany’s Kyoto Protocol emissions targets and to reduce a level of unemployment unprecedented since World War II while avoiding the burden on the public budget through revenue recycling. Employing microdata from household budget surveys of 1998 and 2003, this article analyses whether increased duties on motor fuels and electricity lead to a substantial reduction in households’ consumption of these goods. Considering the ETR as a natural experiment, it uses the difference-in-differences approach in a European context with Germany as the treatment group and Italy, Spain and the UK as the control group. Ordinary least square regressions reveal that motor fuel demand is price inelastic, while electricity consumption increased despite the substantial rise in prices. Quartile regressions show that the effect of the motor fuel tax is slightly higher at the bottom than at the upper tail of the distribution supporting the notion that low-level consumers are more likely to find alternative substitutes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and the official journal of the Asian Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, it provides an international forum for debates among diverse disciplines such as environmental economics, environmental policy studies, and related fields. The main purpose of the journal is twofold: to encourage (1) integration of theoretical studies and policy studies on environmental issues and (2) interdisciplinary works of environmental economics, environmental policy studies, and related fields on environmental issues. The journal also welcomes contributions from any discipline as long as they are consistent with the above stated aims and purposes, and encourages interaction beyond the traditional schools of thought.
期刊最新文献
Bioprospecting, drug choices and conservation of biological diversity under free trade Assessing the impact of energy R&D on green growth in OECD countries: a CS-ARDL analysis Optimal environmental policy for NPS pollution under random welfare Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments Quantile connectedness in renewable energy companies and related commodities during Covid-19 outbreak
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1