IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pre/wpaper/200919.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Competitiveness Impact Of A Multilateral Electricity Generation Tax

Author

Listed:
  • Reyno Seymore

    (Department of Economics, University of Pretoria)

  • Margaret Mabugu

    (Department of Economics, University of Pretoria)

  • Jan van Heerden

    (Department of Economics, University of Pretoria)

Abstract

The South African Government announced, in the 2008 Budget Review, the intention to tax the generation of electricity from non-renewable sources with 2c/kWh. This tax is to be collected by the producers/generators of electricity at the source. The intention of the tax is to serve a dual purpose of managing the potential electricity shortages in South Africa and to protect the environment. The primary objective of this paper is to evaluate the impact of an electricity generation tax on the international competitiveness of South Africa. Specifically, different scenarios are assessed to establish whether the loss of competitiveness can be negated through an international, multilateral electricity generation tax. The paper firstly considers the beneficial impact of environmental taxation on the competitiveness of a country. We subsequently apply the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to evaluate the impact of an electricity generation tax on the competitiveness of South Africa, given multilateral taxes on SACU, SADC and European Union economies. We simulate the proposed tax as a 10 percent increase in the output price of electricity. We assume a closure rule that allows unskilled labour to migrate between sectors and a limited skilled workforce. As expected, a unilateral electricity generation tax in South Africa will adversely affect the competitiveness of the South African economy and slightly improve the competitiveness of the other SACU and SADC economies. However, if a multilateral tax is imposed throughout the SACU and SADC countries, South Africa will experience a marginally greater loss of competitiveness compared to a unilateral tax. At the same time the rest of the SACU and SADC countries will experience a loss of competitiveness. The benefit of emission reduction in South Africa will also be lower under these multilateral tax scenarios. The competitiveness effect on the South African economy as well as emission reduction will be more moderate under a multilateral South Africa/EU electricity generation tax than under a unilateral South African tax.

Suggested Citation

  • Reyno Seymore & Margaret Mabugu & Jan van Heerden, 2009. "The Competitiveness Impact Of A Multilateral Electricity Generation Tax," Working Papers 200919, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:pre:wpaper:200919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/61/WP/wp_2009_19.zp39397.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James N. Blignaut & Jan H. van Heerden & Margaret Chitiga-Mabugu & Philip D. Adams & Reyno Seymore, 2009. "The impact of an electricity generation tax on the South African economy," Working Papers 139, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    2. Greaker, Mads, 2003. "Strategic environmental policy; eco-dumping or a green strategy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 692-707, May.
    3. Mads Greaker, 2004. "Industrial Competitiveness and Diffusion of New Pollution Abatement Technology - a new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Discussion Papers 371, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. R. Seymore & J. H. van Heerden & M. Mabugu, 2013. "The Impact of a Multilateral Electricity Generation Tax on Competitiveness in Southern Africa: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis Using the Global Trade Analysis Project," Energy & Environment, , vol. 24(6), pages 917-938, October.
    2. Csordas, Stefan, 2009. "The global welfare effects of international environmental cooperation," MPRA Paper 20787, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2007. "When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Working Papers 2007s-20, CIRANO.
    4. Polina Ustyuzhanina, 2022. "Decomposition of air pollution emissions from Swedish manufacturing," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 195-223, April.
    5. Fabio Antoniou & Efthymia Kyriakopoulou, 2019. "On the Strategic Effect of International Permits Trading on Local Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1299-1329, November.
    6. Hagem, Cathrine, 2009. "The clean development mechanism versus international permit trading: The effect on technological change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-12, January.
    7. Zulfadhli, 2018. "Determination of Industrial Competitiveness on Manufacturing Industry Growth in Palembang City," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 238-254, July.
    8. Ben Kriechel & Thomas Ziesemer, 2009. "The environmental Porter hypothesis: theory, evidence, and a model of timing of adoption," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 267-294.
    9. Stefan Csordás, 2010. "A Public Choice Approach to Strategic and Nonstrategic Environmental Policy," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 1001-1011, November.
    10. Glebe, Thilo W. & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2004. "Agricultural Trade Liberalization And Strategic Environmental Policy: A Formal Analysis," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20277, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.
    12. Gerardo Viña Vizcaíno & Óscar Darío Amaya Navas, 2016. "Las evaluaciones ambientales estratégicas como instrumentos para el desarrollo sostenible en Colombia," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1022, October.
    13. Reyno SEYMORE & Margaret MABUGU & Jan VAN HEERDEN, 2010. "Border Tax Adjustments to Negate the Economic Impact of an Electricity Generation Tax," EcoMod2010 259600155, EcoMod.
    14. Hamamoto, Mitsutsugu, 2006. "Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-312, November.
    15. Mehmood Mirza, Faisal & Bergland, Olvar & Afzal, Naila, 2014. "Electricity conservation policies and sectorial output in Pakistan: An empirical analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 757-766.
    16. Mads Greaker, 2004. "Industrial Competitiveness and Diffusion of New Pollution Abatement Technology - a new look at the Porter-hypothesis," Discussion Papers 371, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Böhringer, Christoph & Moslener, Ulf & Oberndorfer, Ulrich & Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Clean and productive? Empirical evidence from the German manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 442-451.
    18. Maia David & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2006. "Revisiting the Environmental Subsidy in the Presence of an Eco-Industry," Working Papers 2006/04, INRA, Economie Publique.
    19. Zinnia Mukherjee & Niloufer Sohrabji, 2022. "Environmental Regulation and Export Performance: Evidence from the USA," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 198-225, April.
    20. Sen, Suphi, 2015. "Corporate governance, environmental regulations, and technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 36-61.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pre:wpaper:200919. 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: Rangan Gupta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decupza.html .

    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.