IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20190005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Autonomous, Connected, Electric Shared vehicles (ACES) and public finance: an explorative analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Adler

    () (VU University; AtAdlerAdvisory, The Netherlands)

  • Stefanie Peer

    () (Vienna University of Economics and Business)

  • Tanja Sinozic

    () (Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), Austrian Academy of Sciences (OEAW))

Abstract

This paper discusses the implications of autonomous-connected-electric-shared vehicles (ACES) for public finance, which have so far been widely ignored. In OECD countries, 5-12% of federal and up to 30% of local tax revenue are currently from fuel and vehicle taxation. The diffusion of ACES will likely reduce these important sources of government revenues, while also affecting transport-related government expenditures. We argue that the realization of socioeconomic benefits of ACES depends on the implementation of tailored public finance policies. In particular, the introduction of road tolls in line with ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ principles will become more attractive. Moreover, innovation in taxation schemes to fit the changing technological circumstances may alter the (relative) importance of levels of governance in transport policy making, likely shifting power towards local (in particular urban) governmental levels. We finally argue that due to path-dependencies, and the risk of lock-in effects in sub-optimal public finance regimes, further research and near-term policy action regarding ACES is required.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Adler & Stefanie Peer & Tanja Sinozic, 2019. "Autonomous, Connected, Electric Shared vehicles (ACES) and public finance: an explorative analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-005/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20190005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/19005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fullerton, Don & West, Sarah E., 2002. "Can Taxes on Cars and on Gasoline Mimic an Unavailable Tax on Emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 135-157, January.
    2. Mohring, Herbert, 1972. "Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus Transportation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 591-604, September.
    3. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2009. "Should Urban Transit Subsidies Be Reduced?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 700-724, June.
    4. Proost, S. & Van Dender, K. & Courcelle, C. & De Borger, B. & Peirson, J. & Sharp, D. & Vickerman, R. & Gibbons, E. & O'Mahony, M. & Heaney, Q. & Van den Bergh, J. & Verhoef, E., 2002. "How large is the gap between present and efficient transport prices in Europe?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 41-57, January.
    5. Michael L. Anderson, 2014. "Subways, Strikes, and Slowdowns: The Impacts of Public Transit on Traffic Congestion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2763-2796, September.
    6. Adler, Martin W. & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2016. "Does public transit reduce car travel externalities? Quasi-natural experiments' evidence from transit strikes," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 106-119.
    7. Greenblatt, Jeffery & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2015. "Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility and Environmental Impacts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt23r1h80t, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. De Borger, Bruno & Proost, Stef, 2012. "A political economy model of road pricing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 79-92.
    9. Gilles Duranton & Matthew A. Turner, 2011. "The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2616-2652, October.
    10. De Borger, Bruno, 2001. "Discrete choice models and optimal two-part tariffs in the presence of externalities: optimal taxation of cars," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 471-504, July.
    11. Pernestål Brenden , Anna & Kristoffersson , Ida, 2018. "Effects of driverless vehicles: A review of simulations," Working papers in Transport Economics 2018:11, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    12. Frey, Carl Benedikt & Osborne, Michael A., 2017. "The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 254-280.
    13. Fischer, Carolyn & Parry, Ian W. H. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Instrument choice for environmental protection when technological innovation is endogenous," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 523-545, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Fullerton Don & West Sarah E, 2010. "Tax and Subsidy Combinations for the Control of Car Pollution," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-33, February.
    16. Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Distributional effects of taxing transport fuel," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 75-83.
    17. Maizlish, N. & Woodcock, J. & Co, S. & Ostro, B. & Fanai, A. & Fairley, D., 2013. "Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(4), pages 703-709.
    18. Guerreiro, Joao & Rebelo, S�rgio & Teles, Pedro, 2017. "Should Robots Be Taxed?," CEPR Discussion Papers 12238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Georg Hirte & Stefan Tscharaktschiew, 2015. "Optimal Fuel Taxes and Heterogeneity of Cities," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 35(2), pages 173-209, October.
    20. Innes, Robert, 1996. "Regulating Automobile Pollution under Certainty, Competition, and Imperfect Information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 219-239, September.
    21. Edward Calthrop & Stef Proost, 1998. "Road Transport Externalities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 335-348, April.
    22. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    23. Vickrey, William S, 1969. "Congestion Theory and Transport Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 251-260, May.
    24. Slemrod, Joel, 1990. "Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 157-178, Winter.
    25. Uwe Thuemmel, 2018. "Optimal Taxation of Robots," CESifo Working Paper Series 7317, CESifo.
    26. 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.
    27. De Borger, Bruno & Mayeres, Inge, 2007. "Optimal taxation of car ownership, car use and public transport: Insights derived from a discrete choice numerical optimization model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 1177-1204, July.
    28. Gerard H. Dericks & Hans R. A. Koster, 2018. "The Billion Pound Drop: The Blitz and Agglomeration Economies in London," CEP Discussion Papers dp1542, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    29. Hensher, David A., 2018. "Tackling road congestion – What might it look like in the future under a collaborative and connected mobility model?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-8.
    30. Goldman, Todd & Wachs, Martin, 2003. "A Quiet Revolution in Transportation Finance: The Rise of Local Option Transportation Taxes," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2gp4m4xq, University of California Transportation Center.
    31. Avinash K. Dixit, 1998. "The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction Cost Politics Perspective," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262540983, December.
    32. Reyer Gerlagh & Inge van den Bijgaart & Hans Nijland & Thomas Michielsen, 2015. "Fiscal Policy and CO2 Emissions of New Passenger Cars in the EU," Working Papers 2015.32, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    autonomous connected electric shared vehicles; public finance; taxation; fiscal revenues; fiscal expenditures; disruptive technologies; path-dependency; technological transition; political economy; multilevel-governance;

    JEL classification:

    • R40 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - General
    • R50 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - General
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
    • H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:tin:wpaper:20190005. 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: (Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.