IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v15y2000i2p179-197.html

Economic Impacts of the 1997 EU Energy Tax: Simulations with Three EU-Wide Models

Author

Listed:
  • Heinz Jansen
  • Ger Klaassen

Abstract

In March 1997 the European Commission adopted aproposal that increases existing minimum levels oftaxation on mineral oils by around 10 to 25% andintroduces excises for other energy products. Thispaper analyses the macroeconomic impacts of theproposal. It employs three models: HERMES, GEM-E3, andE3ME. All models confirm that the proposal will havepositive macroeconomic impacts when the tax revenuesare used to reduce social security contributions paidby employers. For the EU as a whole, both GDP andemployment are expected to be higher and CO 2 emissions are 0.9 to 1.6 percent lower. The positiveEU-wide effects can be observed in practically allmember states. The sector impacts are modest, with theenergy sector expected to face the most negativeimpacts. Differences between model results are due tothe model type (general equilibrium ormacro-econometric), the EU countries covered and theway tax exemptions were handled. Crucial assumptionsto obtain the ``double dividend'' are the modelling ofthe labour market and the impacts on EU externaltrade. The sensitivity of the results for the use oftax revenues, tax exemptions and tax rate increases isassessed. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Suggested Citation

  • Heinz Jansen & Ger Klaassen, 2000. "Economic Impacts of the 1997 EU Energy Tax: Simulations with Three EU-Wide Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 179-197, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:15:y:2000:i:2:p:179-197
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008309512349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008309512349
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008309512349?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Capros, P. & Georgakopoulos, P. & Zografakis, S. & Proost, S., 1996. "Double dividend analysis: first results of a general equilibrium mode (GEM-E3) linking the EU countries," LIDAM Reprints CORE 1207, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. repec:cor:louvrp:-1207 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry & Dallas Burtraw, 1996. "Revenue-Raising vs. Other Approaches to Environmental Protection: The Critical Significance of Pre-Existing Tax Distortions," NBER Working Papers 5641, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. : Eduardo L. Giménez (a) & Miguel Rodríguez, "undated". "Pigou’S Dividend Versus Ramsey’S Dividend In The Double Dividend Literature," Working Papers 2-06 Classification-JEL :, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.
    2. Saveyn Bert & Van Regemorter Denise, 2007. "Environmental Policy in a Federal State - A Regional CGE Analysis of the NEC Directive in Belgium," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0701, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    3. Obernhofer, Ulrich & Rennings, Klaus & Sahin, Bedia, 2006. "The impacts of the European Emissions Trading Scheme on competitiveness and employment in Europe: A literature review," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 111466.
    4. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & Xiral López Otero, 2014. "A Panorama on Energy Taxes and Green Tax Reforms," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 145-190, March.
    5. Sijm, Jos & Lehmann, Paul & Chewpreecha, Unnada & Gawel, Erik & Mercure, Jean-Francois & Pollitt, Hector & Strunz, Sebastian, 2014. "EU climate and energy policy beyond 2020: Are additional targets and instruments for renewables economically reasonable?," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2014, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    6. Dannenberg, Astrid & Mennel, Tim & Moslener, Ulf, 2008. "What does Europe pay for clean energy?--Review of macroeconomic simulation studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1318-1330, April.
    7. Chen, Shiyi, 2013. "What is the potential impact of a taxation system reform on carbon abatement and industrial growth in China?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 369-386.
    8. Olga Kiuila & Anil Markandya, 2009. "Can transition economies implement a carbon tax and hope for a double dividend? The case of Estonia," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 705-709.
    9. Kohlhaas, M. & Schumacher, K. & Diekmann, J. & Cames, M. & Schumacher, D., 2004. "Economic, Environmental and International Trade Effects of the EU Directive on Energy Tax Harmonization," Conference papers 331275, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    10. Patuelli, Roberto & Nijkamp, Peter & Pels, Eric, 2005. "Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 564-583, December.

    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. Bosello, Francesco & Carraro, Carlo & Galeotti, Marzio, 2001. "The double dividend issue: modeling strategies and empirical findings," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 9-45, February.
    2. Pizer, William A., 1999. "The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 255-287, August.
    3. Lehmann, Paul, 2010. "Combining emissions trading and emissions taxes in a multi-objective world," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2010, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. Brita Bye & Karine Nyborg, 1999. "The Welfare Effects of Carbon Policies: Grandfathered Quotas versus Differentiated Taxes," Discussion Papers 261, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. Ian W.H. Parry, 2005. "Fiscal Interactions and the Costs of Controlling Pollution from Electricity," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 849-869, Winter.
    6. Ian W.H. Parry & Antonio M. Bento, 2002. "Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the "Double Dividend" Hypothesis," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 22, pages 397-426, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Pizer, William, 1997. "Prices vs. Quantities Revisited: The Case of Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-02, Resources for the Future.
    8. A. Lans Bovenberg & Lawrence H. Goulder, 2001. "Neutralizing the Adverse Industry Impacts of CO2 Abatement Policies: What Does It Cost?," NBER Chapters, in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 45-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Lawrence H. Goulder & Roberton C. Williams III, 1999. "The Usual Excess-Burden Approximation Usually Doesn't Come Close," NBER Working Papers 7034, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Gilbert Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2008. "The Design of a Carbon Tax," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0727, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    11. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2005. "Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1276-1289, September.
    12. Klaus Conrad & Andreas Löschel, 2005. "Recycling of Eco-Taxes, Labor Market Effects and the True Cost of Labor- a CGE Analysis," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 259-278, November.
    13. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol & Schwabe, Kurt, 1997. "Does Nature Limit Environmental Federalism?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-30, Resources for the Future.
    14. Don Fullerton & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2002. "Environmental Controls, Scarcity Rents, and Pre-existing Distortions," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 26, pages 504-522, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Domguia, Edmond Noubissi & Ngounou, Borice Augustin & Pondie, Thierry Messie & Bitoto, Fabrice Ewolo, 2024. "Environmental tax and energy poverty: An economic approach for an environmental and social solution," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    16. Jiang, Tingsong, 2001. "Earmarking of pollution charges and the sub-optimality of the Pigouvian tax," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(4), pages 1-18.
    17. Pizer, William A., 2002. "Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 409-434, September.
    18. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    19. Bovenberg, A. Lans & Goulder, Lawrence H., 2002. "Environmental taxation and regulation," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1471-1545, Elsevier.
    20. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:kap:enreec:v:15:y:2000:i:2:p:179-197. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.