The Distributional Effects of Environmental Tax Reform
In recent years there has been increased debate about the potential for shifting the incidence of the tax system away from a variety of economic goods (i.e. employment, investment, etc...) and towards environmental bads (i.e. pollution emissions, resource extraction, etc ...). However, in spite of their apparent efficiency, economic instruments have been adopted relatively less frequently than direct regulation to mitigate environmental damages. One reason may be that some of the distributional implications of environmental tax reform have not been adequately recognized and addressed. How the costs and benefits of environmental policies are distributed in society is critical for their application since this will play a significant role in determining whether or not a particular measure is likely to be politically feasible. Moreover, for a given level of aggregate economic wealth, a redistribution of resources from richer households toward poorer households will tend to increase overall social welfare, and vice versa. While environmental measures should not be the instrument through which distributional objectives are realized, their growing importance means that distributional implications can no longer be ignored, particularly in the face of increasing economic inequality in many countries. This report reviews some of the distributional implications of environmental tax reform in the residential energy, road transport and agriculture sectors. While some of the most important distributional issues are related to the direct financial burden of the tax, this study also reviews some of the other distributional implications. In particular, it looks at the indirect effects on goods and services through input-output linkages, the potentially mitigating effects through different forms of revenue recycling, the distribution of indirect economic effects such as employment opportunities, as well as the distribution of social and environmental effects such as personal health and exposure to pollutants. The paper argues that in many cases the distributional consequences of environmental tax reform may be distinctly regressive, at least in terms of relative tax burdens. The distribution of environmental and social consequences are much less readily quantifiable, but in many cases their effects may be progressive. However, this depends very much on the sector affected and the precise form of the reform introduced. In addition, the revenue raised by environmental taxes (unlike most other environmental policy measures) provide the means whereby some of these adverse distributional consequences can be mitigated and even reversed. Finally, by addressing market failures and barriers which impact particularly upon lower-income households some measures which mitigate the adverse distributional effects of environmental tax reform can also improve the economic efficiency of the reform. Thus, if designed appropriately, environmental tax reform can meet both distributional and environmental objectives in an efficient manner. On the basis of the evidence reviewed it is concluded that distributional concerns, while important in many cases, should not prevent or delay the introduction of environmental taxes. Rather, they should serve as guiding principles in the design of environmental tax reform not only for their own sake, but also because efficiency objectives and equity objectives can be complementary in a well-designed package of environmental tax reform.
|Date of creation:||1998|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD|
Phone: (+44) 20 7388-2117
Fax: (+44) 020 7388-2826
Web page: http://www.iied.org/SM/eep/index.html
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Bengt Kristrom & Pere Riera, 1996. "Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 45-55, January.
- Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988.
"The Theory of Environmental Policy,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, December.
- Mabey, Nick & Nixon, James, 1997. "Are environmental taxes a free lunch? Issues in modelling the macroeconomic effects of carbon taxes," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 29-56, March.
- Lawrence H. Goulder, 1994. "Environmental Taxation and the "Double Dividend:" A Reader's Guide," NBER Working Papers 4896, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Leonard P. Gianessi & Henry M. Peskin & Edward Wolff, 1979. "The Distributional Effects of Uniform Air Pollution Policy in the United States," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 281-301.
- Tobey, James A. & Reinert, Kenneth A., 1991. "The Effects of Domestic Agricultural Policy Reform on Environmental Quality," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 2.
- Walls, Margaret & Hanson, Jean, 1996. "Distributional Impacts of an Environmental Tax Shift: The Case of Motor Vehicle Emissions Taxes," Discussion Papers dp-96-11, Resources For the Future.
- Casler, Stephen D. & Rafiqui, Aisha, 1993. "Evaluating Fuel Tax Equity: Direct and Indirect Distributional Effects," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 46(2), pages 197-205, June.
- Rendleman, C. Matthew, 1991. "Agrichemical Reduction Policy: Its Effect on Income and Income Distribution," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 4.
- Barker, Terry & Baylis, Susan & Madsen, Peter, 1993. "A UK carbon/energy tax : The macroeconomics effects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 296-308, March.
- Liapis, Peter S., 1994. "Environmental And Economic Implications Of Alternative Ec Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), July.
- Liapis, Peter S., 1994. "Environmental and Economic Implications of Alternative EC Policies," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(01), pages 241-251, July.
- Brooks, Nancy & Sethi, Rajiv, 1997. "The Distribution of Pollution: Community Characteristics and Exposure to Air Toxics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-250, February.
- Vanessa Brechling & Stephen Smith, 1994. "Household energy efficiency in the UK," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 15(2), pages 44-56, May.
- Parry Ian W. H., 1995. "Pollution Taxes and Revenue Recycling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages S64-S77, November.
- Kuo S. Huang, 1996. "Nutrient Elasticities in a Complete Food Demand System," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 21-29.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iieddp:24140. 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: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.