“走下阶梯”:发展中国家取消化石燃料补贴的影响

IF 3.1 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Pub Date : 2022-07-12 DOI:10.1086/721375
H. Greve, J. Lay
{"title":"“走下阶梯”:发展中国家取消化石燃料补贴的影响","authors":"H. Greve, J. Lay","doi":"10.1086/721375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides quasi-experimental evidence from Ghana on the impact of fossil fuel subsidy removal on cooking fuel choices. We find that households “stepped down the energy ladder”: modern fuel use decreased, while the use of transition and traditional fuels expanded. Price increases of 50% for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and 20% for diesel caused the share of households who mainly use firewood to increase by 3 percentage points. Urban households increased charcoal consumption by around 17%, while LPG expenditure remained constant—indicating that consumption dropped. Back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit calculations suggest that overall welfare costs, including from increased cooking-related greenhouse gas emissions, were slightly higher than fiscal savings. The LPG subsidy removal in particular was likely socially damaging. Our findings highlight the ambiguous impacts of removing LPG subsidies in developing-country contexts, where they contribute to the adoption and use of clean cooking fuels.","PeriodicalId":47114,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Stepping Down the Ladder”: The Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Removal in a Developing Country\",\"authors\":\"H. Greve, J. Lay\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/721375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper provides quasi-experimental evidence from Ghana on the impact of fossil fuel subsidy removal on cooking fuel choices. We find that households “stepped down the energy ladder”: modern fuel use decreased, while the use of transition and traditional fuels expanded. Price increases of 50% for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and 20% for diesel caused the share of households who mainly use firewood to increase by 3 percentage points. Urban households increased charcoal consumption by around 17%, while LPG expenditure remained constant—indicating that consumption dropped. Back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit calculations suggest that overall welfare costs, including from increased cooking-related greenhouse gas emissions, were slightly higher than fiscal savings. The LPG subsidy removal in particular was likely socially damaging. Our findings highlight the ambiguous impacts of removing LPG subsidies in developing-country contexts, where they contribute to the adoption and use of clean cooking fuels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/721375\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721375","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文提供了来自加纳的准实验证据,证明化石燃料补贴取消对烹饪燃料选择的影响。我们发现家庭“下了能源阶梯”:现代燃料的使用减少了,而过渡燃料和传统燃料的使用增加了。液化石油气(LPG)和柴油价格分别上涨50%和20%,导致主要使用柴火的家庭比例增加了3个百分点。城市家庭的木炭消费量增加了约17%,而液化石油气支出保持不变,表明消费量下降。粗略的成本效益计算表明,包括烹饪相关温室气体排放增加在内的总体福利成本略高于财政储蓄。特别是取消液化石油气补贴,可能会对社会造成损害。我们的研究结果强调了在发展中国家取消液化石油气补贴的模糊影响,这些补贴有助于采用和使用清洁烹饪燃料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
“Stepping Down the Ladder”: The Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Removal in a Developing Country
This paper provides quasi-experimental evidence from Ghana on the impact of fossil fuel subsidy removal on cooking fuel choices. We find that households “stepped down the energy ladder”: modern fuel use decreased, while the use of transition and traditional fuels expanded. Price increases of 50% for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and 20% for diesel caused the share of households who mainly use firewood to increase by 3 percentage points. Urban households increased charcoal consumption by around 17%, while LPG expenditure remained constant—indicating that consumption dropped. Back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit calculations suggest that overall welfare costs, including from increased cooking-related greenhouse gas emissions, were slightly higher than fiscal savings. The LPG subsidy removal in particular was likely socially damaging. Our findings highlight the ambiguous impacts of removing LPG subsidies in developing-country contexts, where they contribute to the adoption and use of clean cooking fuels.
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
5.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Enforcing Regulation when Violations are Heterogeneous: Empirical Evidence from U.S. Stationary Emissions Policy Information scripts and the incentive compatibility of discrete choice experiments Mind the tap – how volumetric pricing affects residential hot water consumption Resource investments and the timing of tax deductions Environmental Policy Uncertainty
×
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