IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Labor Market Effects of Road Pricing in a Population with Continuously Distributed Value of Time

The purpose of the presentation is to analyze the labor market effects of a congestion charge when commuters have continuously distributed value of time. Since a congestion charge raises the cost of commuting to work, it can decrease employment at the extensive margin in a similar way as an income tax. Without any form of revenue recycling, the resulting welfare loss from the decreased employment can even exceed the Pigouvian welfare gain from internalizing the congestion externality. A common conclusion in the literature, when comparing different revenue recycling schemes, is that it in general is more effective to use the revenues to cut taxes in the labor market compared to subsidizing public transport or returning them in a lump-sum transfer. A critical assumption in many of the previous cost-benefit analyses of congestion charges is however that there only exists a single value of time. This is somewhat surprising since one of the main features of a congestion charge is that it sorts people according to their value of time, given the existence of feasible transport alternatives. This paper intends to challenge this conclusion by analyzing how previous results hold if we, instead of using a representative individual, consider a population with a continuously distributed value of time. The model used in the paper is created with the Stockholm congestion charging trial in mind, but the analysis can just as well be applied to any city with a well developed public transport service. In the paper a simple traffic model is embedded within a general equilibrium framework where a large number of individuals with different values of time choose labor supply at the extensive margin and mode of transportation. In contrast to previous models, a modal-choice approach is used to model how the value of time for different individuals affects their choice of travel mode. The disaggregated travel demand model makes it possible to analyze how self-selection of mode choice affects labor supply, total welfare and the relative performance of the different revenue recycling schemes. Special attention will also be given to the distributional impacts of the different recycling schemes.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa10/ERSA2010finalpaper1458.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by European Regional Science Association in its series ERSA conference papers with number ersa10p1458.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa10p1458
Contact details of provider: Postal: Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria
Web page: http://www.ersa.org

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.:

as in new window
  1. Tony Venables, 2004. "Evaluating urban transport improvements: cost benefit analysis in the presence of agglomeration and income taxation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 2205, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  2. Hultkrantz, Lars & Liu, Xing, 2009. "Green Cars Sterilize Congestion Charges: A Model Analysis Of The Reduced Impact Of Stockholm Road Tolls," Working Papers 2009:16, Örebro University, School of Business.
  3. Mayeres, Inge & Proost, Stef, 1997. " Optimal Tax and Public Investment Rules for Congestion Type of Externalities," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(2), pages 261-79, June.
  4. 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.
  5. Eliasson, Jonas, 2009. "A cost-benefit analysis of the Stockholm congestion charging system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 468-480, May.
  6. Mogens Fosgerau & Kurt Van Dender, 2013. "Road pricing with complications," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 479-503, May.
  7. Rouwendal, Jan & Verhoef, Erik T., 2006. "Basic economic principles of road pricing: From theory to applications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 106-114, March.
  8. Small, Kenneth & Yan, Jia, 2000. "The Value of "Value Pricing" of Roads: Second-Best Pricing and Product Differentiation," Discussion Papers dp-00-08, Resources For the Future.
  9. Eliasson, Jonas & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2006. "Equity effects of congestion pricing: Quantitative methodology and a case study for Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 602-620, August.
  10. Parry, Ian & Bento, Antonio, 1999. "Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing," Discussion Papers dp-99-45, Resources For the Future.
  11. Parry, Ian W. H. & Bento, Antonio, 2002. "Estimating the Welfare Effect of Congestion Taxes: The Critical Importance of Other Distortions within the Transport System," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 339-365, March.
  12. Amihai Glazer & Esko Niskanen, 2000. "Which Consumers Benefit from Congestion Tolls?," Discussion Papers 216, Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT).
  13. Armelius, Hanna & Hultkrantz, Lars, 2006. "The politico-economic link between public transport and road pricing: An ex-ante study of the Stockholm road-pricing trial," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 162-172, March.
  14. Inge Mayeres & Stef Proost, 1998. "Marginal Tax Reform, Externalities and Income Distribution," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces9832, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
  15. Gutiérrez-i-Puigarnau, Eva & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2010. "Labour supply and commuting," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 82-89, July.
  16. Anas, Alex & Kim, Ikki, 1996. "General Equilibrium Models of Polycentric Urban Land Use with Endogenous Congestion and Job Agglomeration," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 232-256, September.
  17. Ninette Pilegaard & Mogens Fosgerau, 2008. "Cost Benefit Analysis of a Transport Improvement in the Case of Search Unemployment," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 42(1), pages 23-42, January.
  18. Small, Kenneth A, 2004. "6. Road Pricing And Public Transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 133-158, January.
  19. Eliasson, Jonas & Hultkrantz, Lars & Nerhagen, Lena & Rosqvist, Lena Smidfelt, 2009. "The Stockholm congestion - charging trial 2006: Overview of effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 240-250, March.
  20. Kleven, Henrik Jacobsen & Kreiner, Claus Thustrup, 2006. "The marginal cost of public funds: Hours of work versus labor force participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 1955-1973, November.
  21. Eban Goodstein, 2003. "The Death of the Pigovian Tax? Policy Implications from the Double-Dividend Debate," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(3), pages 402-414.
  22. Inge Mayeres & Stef Proost, 2002. "Reforming transport pricing: an economist's perspective on equity, efficiency and acceptability," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0212, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Energy, Transport and Environment.
  23. Jonas Eliasson & Lars-Göran Mattsson, 2001. "Transport and Location Effects of Road Pricing: A Simulation Approach," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 35(3), pages 417-456, September.
  24. Zhu, Xueqin & Van Ommeren, Jos & Rietveld, Piet, 2009. "Indirect benefits of infrastructure improvement in the case of an imperfect labor market," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 57-72, January.
  25. Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
  26. Richard Arnott & An Yan, 2000. "The Two-Mode Problem: Second-Best Pricing and Capacity," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 474, Boston College Department of Economics.
  27. Eliasson, Jonas, 2008. "Lessons from the Stockholm congestion charging trial," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 395-404, November.
  28. Charlotte Berg, 2007. "Household Transport Demand in a CGE-framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 573-597, July.
  29. Ian W.H. Parry & Wallace E. Oates, 2000. "Policy analysis in the presence of distorting taxes," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 603-613.
  30. Karlström, Anders & Franklin, Joel P., 2009. "Behavioral adjustments and equity effects of congestion pricing: Analysis of morning commutes during the Stockholm Trial," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 283-296, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa10p1458. 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: (Gunther Maier)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.