IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/was/dpaper/2504.html

Unintended Consequences of Japan’s EcoCar Policies_Strategic Weight Manipulation and CO2 Emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Shigeharu Okajima

    (Kobe University, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies, 2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657- 8501.)

  • Hiroko Okajima

    (Nagoya University, Nagoya University Graduate School of Economics, Furocho, Chikusa Ward, Nagoya City Aichi 464-8601.)

  • Kenta Nakamura

    (Kobe University, Graduate School of Economics, 2-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501)

  • Yoshito Nakayama

    (Osaka University of Economics, 2-2-8 Osumi HigashiYodogawa-ku Osaka-shi, 533-8533.)

Abstract

This study evaluates the environmental effectiveness of Japan’s eco-car tax incentive program by explicitly accounting for the strategic weight manipulation by automobile manufacturers. Using monthly vehicle- level panel data from 2005 to 2021, we estimate a structural demand model for the Japanese passenger car market to examine how firms respond to weight-based fuel economy standards. Our results show that vehicles strategically adjusted to exceed regulatory weight thresholds experienced a 31% increase in relative market share, reflecting a substantial demand expansion driven by regulatory compliance rather than genuine fuel efficiency improvements. To assess the broader implications, we conduct a structural substitution counterfactual analysis comparing the observed outcomes with a no- manipulation benchmark. The counterfactual analysis reveals that strategic weight manipulation increases the sales of manipulated vehicles by 102,771 units and reduces the sales of compliant vehicles by only 3,707 units. This asymmetric displacement indicates that manipulation primarily expands overall demand rather than reallocating sales among substitutes. The resulting demand distortion produced a net increase of 133,162 tons of CO2 emissions over the sample period, substantially undermining the policy’s emissions-reduction objectives. Our findings demonstrate that weight-class-based fuel economy regulation creates strong incentives for regulatory gaming, which materially weakens environmental effectiveness. The results highlight the need for policy designs that minimize discrete eligibility thresholds and reward continuous and verifiable improvements in real-world fuel efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Shigeharu Okajima & Hiroko Okajima & Kenta Nakamura & Yoshito Nakayama, 2026. "Unintended Consequences of Japan’s EcoCar Policies_Strategic Weight Manipulation and CO2 Emissions," RIEEM Discussion Paper Series 2504, Research Institute for Environmental Economics and Management, Waseda University.
  • Handle: RePEc:was:dpaper:2504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://prj-rieem.w.waseda.jp/dp/dp2504.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James M. Sallee, 2011. "The Taxation of Fuel Economy," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-38.
    2. Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Muehlegger, Erich, 2011. "Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-15, January.
    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. Allcott, Hunt & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Taubinsky, Dmitry, 2014. "Energy policy with externalities and internalities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 72-88.
    2. Carley, Sanya & Zirogiannis, Nikolaos & Siddiki, Saba & Duncan, Denvil & Graham, John D., 2019. "Overcoming the shortcomings of U.S. plug-in electric vehicle policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Ian Irvine, 2017. "The Marginal Social Value of Electric Vehicle Subsidies - Preliminary Evidence," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(1), pages 137-148.
    4. James M. Sallee, 2011. "The Taxation of Fuel Economy," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-38.
    5. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    6. Isaksen, Elisabeth T. & Johansen, Bjørn G., 2025. "Congestion pricing with electric vehicle exemptions: Car-ownership effects and other behavioral adjustments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Wang, Jiaxing & Matsumoto, Shigeru, 2022. "Can subsidy programs lead consumers to select “greener” products?: Evidence from the Eco-car program in Japan," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Li, Zhe & Ouyang, Minggao, 2011. "A win-win marginal rent analysis for operator and consumer under battery leasing mode in China electric vehicle market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3222-3237, June.
    9. Ozaki, Ritsuko & Sevastyanova, Katerina, 2011. "Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2217-2227, May.
    10. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    11. Shanjun Li & Joshua Linn & Erich Muehlegger, 2014. "Gasoline Taxes and Consumer Behavior," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 302-342, November.
    12. Lucas W. Davis, 2017. "The Environmental Cost of Global Fuel Subsidies," The Energy Journal, , vol. 38(1_suppl), pages 7-28, June.
    13. Wen, Wen & Zhou, P. & Zhang, Fuqiang, 2018. "Carbon emissions abatement: Emissions trading vs consumer awareness," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 34-47.
    14. Jun-bin Wang & Lufei Huang, 2021. "A Game-Theoretic Analytical Approach for Fostering Energy-Saving Innovation in the Electric Vehicle Supply Chain," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    15. Petschnig, Martin & Heidenreich, Sven & Spieth, Patrick, 2014. "Innovative alternatives take action – Investigating determinants of alternative fuel vehicle adoption," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 68-83.
    16. Xu, Lei & Su, Jun, 2016. "From government to market and from producer to consumer: Transition of policy mix towards clean mobility in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 328-340.
    17. Jacobus Nel & Roula Inglesi-Lotz, 2022. "Electric Vehicles Market and Policy Conditions: Identifying South African Policy ``Potholes"�," Working Papers 202257, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    18. Bergantino, Angela S. & Intini, Mario & Percoco, Marco, 2021. "New car taxation and its unintended environmental consequences," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-48.
    19. Sallee, James M. & West, Sarah E. & Fan, Wei, 2016. "Do consumers recognize the value of fuel economy? Evidence from used car prices and gasoline price fluctuations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 61-73.
    20. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:was:dpaper:2504. 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: Takuro Miyamoto (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://prj-rieem.w.waseda.jp/en/discussion_papers .

    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.