IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pewipo/v18y2017i4p335-347n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte

Author

Listed:
  • Frondel Manuel

    (RWI Leibniz-Institut für WirtschaftsforschungHohenzollernstraße 1–3, 45128 EssenEssenGermanyRuhr-Universität BochumUniversitätsstraße 150, 44801 BochumBochumGermany)

  • Kutzschbauch Ole

    (Helmut-Schmidt-Universität HamburgHolstenhofweg 85, 22043 HamburgHamburgGermany)

  • Sommer Stephan

    (RWI Leibniz-InstitutWirtschaftsforschungHohenzollernstraße 1–3, 45128 EssenEssenGermany)

  • Traub Stefan

    (Helmut-Schmidt-Universität HamburgHolstenhofweg 85, 22043 HamburgHamburgGermany)

Abstract

Die Energiewende bürdet den Verbrauchern zunehmende Lasten auf, die diese vor allem mit ihrer Stromrechnung zu begleichen haben. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden empirischen Studie zeigen, dass in der Regel eine Aufteilung der Kosten der Energiewende gewünscht wird, die Haushalte mit hohen Einkommen vergleichsweise stärker in die Pflicht nimmt. Die auf dieser Grundlage konstatierte Gerechtigkeitslücke zwischen der gewünschten und der tatsächlichen Kostenbelastung privater Haushalte nimmt mit den wachsenden Kosten der Energiewende voraussichtlich weiter zu. Diese Lücke könnte im Prinzip leicht geschlossen werden, wie die in diesem Beitrag dargestellten empirischen Schätzungen der Zahlungsbereitschaft der Haushalte für die Förderung der Erneuerbaren auf Basis von Diskrete-Wahl-Modellen nahelegen. So könnten die einkommensstärkeren Haushalte bei der Finanzierung der Energiewende stärker als bislang in die Pflicht genommen werden, da diese eine statistisch signifikant höhere Zustimmung zu zukünftigen EEG-Umlageerhöhungen zeigen als einkommensschwache Haushalte.

Suggested Citation

  • Frondel Manuel & Kutzschbauch Ole & Sommer Stephan & Traub Stefan, 2017. "Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 335-347, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pewipo:v:18:y:2017:i:4:p:335-347:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/pwp-2017-0034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/pwp-2017-0034
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/pwp-2017-0034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2014. "Consequentiality and Opt-out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 471-488, December.
    2. repec:zbw:rwirep:0542 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer & Colin Vance, 2015. "The burden of Germanyùs energy transition: An empirical analysis of distributional effects," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(c), pages 89-99.
    4. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    5. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    6. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    7. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    8. Erik Schokkaert, 1999. "M. Tout-le-monde est "post-welfariste". Opinions sur la justice redistributive," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 50(4), pages 811-831.
    9. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    10. Cummings, Ronald G & Elliott, Steven & Harrison, Glenn W & Murphy, James, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    11. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    12. Andor, Mark & Frondel, Manuel & Vance, Colin, 2015. "Installing Photovoltaics in Germany: A license to print money?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 106-116.
    13. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, May.
    14. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2006. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 615-691, Elsevier.
    15. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2009. "An experimental study on individual choice, social welfare, and social preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 385-400, May.
    16. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    17. Peter Heindl & Rudolf Schüßler & Andreas Löschel, 2014. "Ist die Energiewende sozial gerecht?," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 94(7), pages 508-514, July.
    18. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frondel, Manuel & Sommer, Stephan, 2018. "Der Preis der Energiewende: Anstieg der Kostenbelastung einkommensschwacher Haushalte," RWI Materialien 128, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    2. Frondel, Manuel & Schubert, Stefanie A., 2021. "Carbon pricing in Germany's road transport and housing sector: Options for reimbursing carbon revenues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Frondel, Manuel, 2017. "Deutschlands Klimapolitik: Höchste Zeit für einen Strategiewechsel," RWI Materialien 117, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    4. Frondel, Manuel, 2017. "Die Verteilung der Kosten des Ausbaus der Erneuerbaren: Eine qualitative Bewertung der meistdiskutierten Vorschläge," RWI Materialien 121, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    5. Frondel, Manuel, 2019. "CO2-Bepreisung in den nicht in den Emissionshandel integrierten Sektoren: Optionen für eine sozial ausgewogene Ausgestaltung," RWI Materialien 130, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    6. Groh, Elke D. & Möllendorff, Charlotte v., 2020. "What shapes the support of renewable energy expansion? Public attitudes between policy goals and risk, time, and social preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    7. Beyer, Gregor & Borchers, Dagmar & Frondel, Manuel & Hrach, Marcus & Kutzschbauch, Ole & Menges, Roland & Sommer, Stephan & Traub, Stefan, 2017. "Die gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz der Energiewende: Befunde eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprojektes," RWI Materialien 116, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    2. Frondel Manuel & Sommer Stephan, 2017. "Der Wert von Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Evidenz für deutsche Haushalte," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 66(3), pages 294-317, December.
    3. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    4. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer, 2018. "Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 876-881, October.
    6. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    7. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    8. Mark A. Andor, Manuel Frondel, and Colin Vance, 2017. "Germanys Energiewende: A Tale of Increasing Costs and Decreasing Willingness-To-Pay," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(KAPSARC S).
    9. Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Zawojska, Ewa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Louviere, Jordan, 2018. "Mitigating strategic misrepresentation of values in open-ended stated preference surveys by using negative reinforcement," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 153-166.
    10. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    11. Andor Mark A. & Frondel Manuel & Vance Colin, 2014. "Hypothetische Zahlungsbereitschaft für grünen Strom: Bekundete Präferenzen privater Haushalte für das Jahr 2013," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 355-366, December.
    12. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    13. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    15. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. repec:zbw:rwirep:0480 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Mark Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2014. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias – Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Ruhr Economic Papers 0480, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Ana Bedate & Luis Herrero & José Sanz, 2009. "Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(3), pages 185-199, August.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    21. Andor, Mark A. & Frondel, Manuel & Vance, Colin, 2014. "Zahlungsbereitschaft für grünen Strom: Die Kluft zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit," RWI Materialien 79, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    D63; H3; Q4; Verteilungswirkungen; Leistungsfähigkeitsprinzip; erneuerbare Energien;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:pewipo:v:18:y:2017:i:4:p:335-347:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.