IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v87y2015icp370-381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of policy characteristics and justifications on acceptance of a gasoline tax increase

Author

Listed:
  • Kaplowitz, Stan A.
  • McCright, Aaron M.

Abstract

Many economists argue that increasing the gasoline tax is an effective way to reduce fuel consumption. Yet, public support for such a tax increase has been rather low among US residents. We performed eight survey experiments (total N approximately 3000) to examine how selected policy characteristics and persuasive messages influence support for a gasoline tax increase. Several policy characteristics significantly increased support for a gasoline tax increase. Having the increase phased in over five years modestly increased support. Compared with giving the extra revenue to the US Treasury’s General Fund, both refunding the extra revenue equally to all American families and having this revenue used for energy efficient transportation strongly increased support. Support for a gasoline tax increase was not affected by the nature of the mechanism to achieve revenue neutrality. Most people supported a 20 cent per gallon tax increase to repair roads and bridges. Explaining how the gasoline tax increase would reduce fuel consumption slightly increased support for a gasoline tax increase, but neither being informed of the high gasoline prices in other advanced industrial countries nor the actual pump price of gasoline at the time of the experiment influenced support for a gasoline tax increase.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaplowitz, Stan A. & McCright, Aaron M., 2015. "Effects of policy characteristics and justifications on acceptance of a gasoline tax increase," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 370-381.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:87:y:2015:i:c:p:370-381
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151530080X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.037?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James M. Poterba, 1991. "Is the Gasoline Tax Regressive?," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 145-164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Easterlin, Richard A., 1974. "Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence," MPRA Paper 111773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Brons, Martijn & Nijkamp, Peter & Pels, Eric & Rietveld, Piet, 2008. "A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand. A SUR approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2105-2122, September.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    6. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bord & Brent Yarnal & Nancy Wiefek, 2002. "Who Wants to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 1-17, March.
    7. Whaples Robert, 2006. "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 3(9), pages 1-6, November.
    8. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    9. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    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. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    2. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    3. Gabriella De Sario & Giovanni Marin & Agnese Sacchi, 2023. "Citizens' attitudes towards climate mitigation policies: The role of occupational exposure in EU countries," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 255-280, May.
    4. Sara Maestre-Andrés & Stefan Drews & Ivan Savin & Jeroen Bergh, 2021. "Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Langer, Ashley & Maheshri, Vikram & Winston, Clifford, 2017. "From gallons to miles: A disaggregate analysis of automobile travel and externality taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 34-46.
    6. Weiner, Csaba & Muth, Dániel & Lakócai, Csaba, 2023. "A szén-dioxid-kibocsátást terhelő adó társadalmi elfogadottsága és a fizetési hajlandóság alakulása Magyarországon [Public acceptance of and willingness to pay for a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 1077-1107.
    7. Lucia Rotaris & Alessandro Gardelli, 2018. "Carbon Tax acceptability: A comparative experimental analysis," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1), pages 117-132.
    8. Ahmed, Kashif & Kamihigashi, Takashi & Matsuo, Miwa, 2023. "Positive fuel price elasticities of expressway traffic flows: Insights for policymakers and management strategists," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-114.
    9. Lin, Boqiang & Jia, Zhijie, 2019. "How does tax system on energy industries affect energy demand, CO2 emissions, and economy in China?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Xu, Lei & Chen, Jingrui & Qu, Fang & Wang, Jue & Lu, Yi, 2022. "Queuing to refuel before price rise in China: How do gasoline price changes affect consumer responses and behaviours?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    11. Hilary Nixon & Asha Weinstein Agrawal, 2019. "Would Americans pay more in taxes for better transportation? Answers from seven years of national survey data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 819-840, June.

    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. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    2. Clément Bellet, 2017. "Essays on Inequality, Social Preferences and Consumer Behavior," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/vbu6kd1s68o, Sciences Po.
    3. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    4. Carolyn Fischer & William A. Pizer, 2019. "Horizontal Equity Effects in Energy Regulation," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(S1), pages 209-237.
    5. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    6. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    7. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Georgellis, Yannis & Tsitsianis, Nicholas & Yin, Ya Ping, 2009. "Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 42-51, February.
    8. Pedro Linares & Xavier Labandeira, 2010. "Energy Efficiency: Economics And Policy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 573-592, July.
    9. Binswanger, Johannes, 2012. "Life cycle saving: Insights from the perspective of bounded rationality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 605-623.
    10. Edsel L. Beja, 2017. "The Asymmetric Effects of Macroeconomic Performance on Happiness: Evidence for the EU," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 52(3), pages 184-190, May.
    11. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward & Femke De Keulenaer & Bert Van Landeghem & Georgios Kavetsos & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Well-Being Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 362-375, May.
    12. Klaus Wälde & Agnes Moors, 2016. "Current Emotion Research in Economics," Working Papers 1612, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    13. Beja, Edsel Jr., 2019. "Consumer Expectations Survey and Quarterly Social Weather Survey: Evidence of Convergent Validity and Causality," MPRA Paper 101074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Robert J. B. Goudie & Sach Mukherjee & Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Andrew J. Oswald & Stephen Wu, 2011. "Happiness as a Driver of Risk-Avoiding Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 3451, CESifo.
    15. Zokaei Ashtiani, Amin & Dudek, Thomas & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2020. "Happy savers and happy spenders: An experimental study comparing US Americans and Germans," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Ng, Yew-Kwang & Wang, Jianguo, 2001. "Attitude choice, economic change, and welfare," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 279-291, July.
    17. Bruno S. Frey & Matthias Benz, 2004. "From Imperialism to Inspiration: A Survey of Economics and Psychology," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & Alain Marciano & Jochen Runde (ed.), The Elgar Companion To Economics and Philosophy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Arthur Lewbel & Samuel Norris & Krishna Pendakur & Xi Qu, 2022. "Consumption peer effects and utility needs in India," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 1257-1295, July.
    19. Frijters, Paul & Krekel, Christian & Ulker, Aydogan, 2023. "Should bads be inflicted all at once, like Machiavelli said? Evidence from life-satisfaction data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1-27.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2011. "Behavior under Extreme Conditions: The Titanic Disaster," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 209-222, Winter.

    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:eee:enepol:v:87:y:2015:i:c:p:370-381. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.