IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwimat/113.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte

Author

Listed:
  • Frondel, Manuel
  • Kutzschbauch, Ole
  • Sommer, Stephan
  • Traub, Stefan

Abstract

Die Energiewende bürdet den Verbrauchern zunehmende Lasten auf. Relativ zu ihrem Einkommen fallen diese Belastungen für einkommensschwache Haushalte stäker aus als für einkommensstarke Haushalte. Die Ergebnisse unserer empirischen Erhebung unter mehr als 11.000 Haushalten zeigen jedoch, dass in der Regel eine Aufteilung der Kosten der Energiewende gewünscht wird, die Haushalte mit hohen Einkommen vergleichsweise stärker in die Pflicht nimmt als einkommensschwache Haushalte. Die auf dieser Grundlage von uns konstatierte Gerechtigkeitslücke zwischen der gewünschten und tatsächlichen Kostenbelastung der Haushalte nimmt mit den wachsenden Kosten der Energiewende voraussichtlich weiter zu. Diese Lücke könnte im Prinzip jedoch leicht geschlossen werden, wie die in diesem Beitrag dargestellten empirischen Schätzungen der Zahlungsbereitschaft der Haushalte für die Förderung der Erneuerbaren auf Basis von Diskreten-Wahl-Modellen nahelegen. So könnten die einkommenstärkeren Haushalte bei der Finanzierung der Energiewende stäker als bislang in die Pflicht genommen werden, da nach unseren Schätzergebnissen die Haushalte des oberen Einkommensdrittels eine statistisch signifikant höhere Zustimmung zu zukünftigen EEG-Umlageerhöhungen zeigen als die Haushalte des unteren Einkommensdrittels.

Suggested Citation

  • Frondel, Manuel & Kutzschbauch, Ole & Sommer, Stephan & Traub, Stefan, 2017. "Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte," RWI Materialien 113, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:rwimat:113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/156287/1/882882465.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hwang, Joonghyun & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2014. "Consequentiality and Opt-out Responses in Stated Preference Surveys," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 471-488, December.
    2. repec:zbw:rwirep:0542 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    4. Erik Schokkaert, 1999. "M. Tout-le-monde est "post-welfariste". Opinions sur la justice redistributive," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 50(4), pages 811-831.
    5. Cummings, Ronald G & Elliott, Steven & Harrison, Glenn W & Murphy, James, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    6. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    7. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, May.
    8. Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer & Colin Vance, 2015. "The burden of Germanyùs energy transition: An empirical analysis of distributional effects," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(c), pages 89-99.
    9. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2009. "An experimental study on individual choice, social welfare, and social preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 385-400, May.
    10. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    11. Peter Heindl & Rudolf Schüßler & Andreas Löschel, 2014. "Ist die Energiewende sozial gerecht?," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 94(7), pages 508-514, July.
    12. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    13. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2006. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 615-691, Elsevier.
    14. Karen Blumenschein & Glenn C. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    15. Andor, Mark & Frondel, Manuel & Vance, Colin, 2015. "Installing Photovoltaics in Germany: A license to print money?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 106-116.
    16. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    17. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    18. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frondel, Manuel, 2019. "CO2-Bepreisung in den nicht in den Emissionshandel integrierten Sektoren: Optionen für eine sozial ausgewogene Ausgestaltung," RWI Materialien 130, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    2. Groh, Elke D. & Möllendorff, Charlotte v., 2020. "What shapes the support of renewable energy expansion? Public attitudes between policy goals and risk, time, and social preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Frondel, Manuel & Schubert, Stefanie A., 2021. "Carbon pricing in Germany's road transport and housing sector: Options for reimbursing carbon revenues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Frondel, Manuel, 2017. "Die Verteilung der Kosten des Ausbaus der Erneuerbaren: Eine qualitative Bewertung der meistdiskutierten Vorschläge," RWI Materialien 121, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    5. Frondel, Manuel, 2017. "Deutschlands Klimapolitik: Höchste Zeit für einen Strategiewechsel," RWI Materialien 117, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    6. Frondel, Manuel & Sommer, Stephan, 2018. "Der Preis der Energiewende: Anstieg der Kostenbelastung einkommensschwacher Haushalte," RWI Materialien 128, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    7. Beyer, Gregor & Borchers, Dagmar & Frondel, Manuel & Hrach, Marcus & Kutzschbauch, Ole & Menges, Roland & Sommer, Stephan & Traub, Stefan, 2017. "Die gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz der Energiewende: Befunde eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprojektes," RWI Materialien 116, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

    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. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2018. "Payment and Provision Consequentiality in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism: Single or Double “Knife-Edge” Evidence?," Cahiers de recherche 18-02, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    2. Frondel Manuel & Sommer Stephan, 2017. "Der Wert von Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Evidenz für deutsche Haushalte," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 66(3), pages 294-317, December.
    3. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    4. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    5. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer, 2018. "Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 876-881, October.
    7. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    9. Mark A. Andor, Manuel Frondel, and Colin Vance, 2017. "Germanys Energiewende: A Tale of Increasing Costs and Decreasing Willingness-To-Pay," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(KAPSARC S).
    10. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Zawojska, Ewa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Louviere, Jordan, 2018. "Mitigating strategic misrepresentation of values in open-ended stated preference surveys by using negative reinforcement," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 153-166.
    12. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    13. Andor Mark A. & Frondel Manuel & Vance Colin, 2014. "Hypothetische Zahlungsbereitschaft für grünen Strom: Bekundete Präferenzen privater Haushalte für das Jahr 2013," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 355-366, December.
    14. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    15. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Marco Horvath, 2021. "Consequentiality, Elicitation Formats, and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity: Evidence from Germany," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(3), pages 626-640.
    16. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. repec:zbw:rwirep:0480 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Mark Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2014. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias – Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Ruhr Economic Papers 0480, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    19. Ana Bedate & Luis Herrero & José Sanz, 2009. "Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 33(3), pages 185-199, August.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    21. Gianluca Stefani & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "The Referendum Incentive Compatibility Hypothesis:Some New Results Using Information Messages," Working Papers in Economics 07/10, University of Waikato.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Verteilungswirkungen; Leistungsfähigkeitsprinzip; Erneuerbare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    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:zbw:rwimat:113. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rwiesde.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.