Avoiding adverse employment effects from electricity taxation in Norway: What does it cost?
Welfare analyses of energy taxes typically show that systems with uniform rates perform better than differentiated systems. However, most western countries include some exemptions for their energy-intensive export industries and thereby avoid this potential welfare gain. Böhringer and Rutherford (1997) find that uniform taxation of carbon emissions in combination with a wage subsidy preserves jobs in these industries at a lower welfare cost compared with a differentiated system. The wage subsidy scheme generates a substantial welfare gain per job saved. This study, however, finds that welfare costs are substantial when less accurate policy measures, represented by production-dependent subsidies, protect jobs in Norwegian electricity-intensive industries. The welfare cost per job preserved by this subsidy scheme amounts to approximately 60% of the wage cost per job, suggesting that these jobs are expensive to preserve. A uniform electricity tax combined with production-dependent subsidies preserves jobs at a lower welfare cost compared with the current differentiated electricity tax system.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- A. Lans Bovenberg & Lawrence H. Goulder, 2001.
"Neutralizing the Adverse Industry Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies: What Does It Cost?,"
in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 45-90
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Goulder, Lawrence & Bovenberg, A. Lans, 2000. "Neutralizing the Adverse Industry Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies: What Does It Cost?," Discussion Papers dp-00-27, Resources For the Future.
- A. Lans Bovenberg & Lawrence H. Goulder, 2000. "Neutralizing the Adverse Industry Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies: What Does it Cost?," NBER Working Papers 7654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bowitz, Einar & Cappelen, Adne, 2001. "Modeling income policies: some Norwegian experiences 1973-1993," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 349-379, August.
- Klette, Tor Jakob, 1999.
"Market Power, Scale Economies and Productivity: Estimates from a Panel of Establishment Data,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 451-76, December.
- Klette, T.J., 1998. "Market Power, Scale Economies and Productivity: Estimates from a Panel of Establishment Data," Memorandum 15/1998, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Herman Vollebergh & Jan Vries & Paul Koutstaal, 1997. "Hybrid carbon incentive mechanisms and political acceptability," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 43-63, January.
- Brita Bye & Karine Nyborg, 2003. "Are Differentiated Carbon Taxes Inefficient? A General Equilibrium Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 95-112.
- Felder, Stefan & Schleiniger, Reto, 2002. "Environmental tax reform: efficiency and political feasibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 107-116, August.
- Bohringer, Christoph & Rutherford, Thomas F., 1997. "Carbon Taxes with Exemptions in an Open Economy: A General Equilibrium Analysis of the German Tax Initiative," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 189-203, February.
- Richter, Wolfram F. & Schneider, Kerstin, 2003. "Energy taxation: Reasons for discriminating in favor of the production sector," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 461-476, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:9:p:4766-4773. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.