Suchergebnisse

Carbon taxes are an economically effective and efficient policy measure to address climate change mitigation. However, they can have severe adverse distributional effects. Recycling parts of the fiscal revenues to vulnerable, lower income households through cash transfers (social assistance) is an option to also overcome associated political difficulties. This paper simulates the distributional impacts of such a combined policy reform in Peru. In a first step, we assess the distributional impacts of varying carbon tax rates. In a second step, we evaluate different scenarios of recycling revenues through existing or expanded transfer schemes towards vulnerable households. The results indicate that a national carbon tax, without compensation, would increase poverty but have no significant impact on inequality. When tax revenues are recycled through transfer schemes, however, poverty would actually decrease. Depending on the amount to be redistributed and the design of the cash transfer scheme, our simulations show a proportional reduction in the poverty headcount of up to around 17%. In addition, the paper underlines how crucial it is to go beyond aggregate measures of poverty to better identify losers from such reform; and assure that the "leave no one behind" principle of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is addressed.

A global uniform carbon price would be economically efficient and at the same time avoid 'carbon-leakage'. Still, it will affect the competitiveness of specific industries, economic activity and employment across countries. This paper assesses short-term economic shocks following the introduction of a global carbon price that would be in line with the Paris Agreement. Based on the World Input-Output Database (WIOD), we trace the carbon content of final output through global supply chains. This allows us to estimate how prices of the final output would react to the introduction of a global carbon price. We find that impacts on industrial competitiveness are highly heterogeneous across regions and economic sectors. The competitive position of Brazil, Japan, the USA and advanced economies of the EU is likely to improve, whereas industries and labor markets in newly industrializing Asian economies as well as Eastern Europe are likely to experience substantial adverse impacts. © 2019 The Author(s)

Sectoral production technologies differ largely across countries, so do sectoral energy intensities. Hence, shifts in production locations within global sectors, possibly caused by environmental regulations, are likely to have an impact on aggregated energy usage and emissions. Applying a Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index decomposition we decompose changes of sectoral energy use from 2001–2011 into three effects: (sectoral) value added, energy efficiency and delocalization, which in this paper is conceived as a structural effect within sectors, between regions. Our results show that although economic activity and technological progress dominate global energy use developments, for most sectors a delocalization towards less efficient production places is ongoing. It contributes to annual increases in energy use in the range of 1–6%. Especially, manufacturing sectors, which are among the most energy consuming sectors, reveal significant increases in energy usage due to delocalization since 2004. This development is accompanied by declining energy intensity improvement rates, indicating that delocalization induces second order effects. ; BMBF, 01LS1610B, Klimapolitische Maßnahmen und Transformationspfade zur Begrenzung der globalen Erwärmung auf 1.5°C (PEP1p5) ; DFG, SFB 1026, Sustainable Manufacturing - Globale Wertschöpfung nachhaltig gestalten

Energy subsidies account for about 7% of Ecuador's yearly public spending, or two thirds of the fiscal deficit. Removing these subsidies would yield clear economic and environmental benefits and help implement climate targets set in the Paris Agreement. However, expected adverse effects on vulnerable households can make reforms politically difficult. To inform policy design, we use household survey data from Ecuador in combination with augmented input-output data to assess the distributional impacts of energy subsidy reform. We find that in absolute terms energy subsidies benefit richer households more than poor ones. Relative to household income, subsidy removal without compensation would be regressive for diesel and LPG, progressive for gasoline, and approximately neutral for electricity. We then analyze how a fraction of financial resources freed up by subsidy reform could be used to mitigate income losses for poor households by means of in-kind and in-cash revenue recycling schemes. Our results indicate that removing all energy subsidies and increasing the existing social protection program, Bono de Desarrollo Humano, by nearly US$ 50 per month would confer net benefits of almost 10% of their current income to the poorest quintile. In addition, more than 1.3 billion US$ would still be available for the public budget after the reform. Finally, we conduct expert interviews to evaluate the political and institutional challenges related to energy subsidy reform. We identify two combinations of reform options and recycling schemes that would benefit the poorest 40% of households and are deemed to be feasible: eliminating subsidies on gasoline while increasing the amount transferred to vulnerable households through the Bono de Desarrollo Humano and replacing universal LPG subsidies with targeted LPG vouchers.

Energy subsidies account for about 7% of Ecuador's yearly public spending, or two thirds of the fiscal deficit. Removing these subsidies would yield clear economic and environmental benefits and help implement climate targets set in the Paris Agreement. However, expected adverse effects on vulnerable households can make reforms politically difficult. To inform policy design, we use household survey data from Ecuador in combination with augmented input-output data to assess the distributional impacts of energy subsidy reform. We find that in absolute terms energy subsidies benefit richer households more than poor ones. Relative to household income, subsidy removal without compensation would be regressive for diesel and LPG, progressive for gasoline, and approximately neutral for electricity. We then analyze how a fraction of financial resources freed up by subsidy reform could be used to mitigate income losses for poor households by means of in-kind and in-cash revenue recycling schemes. Our results indicate that removing all energy subsidies and increasing the existing social protection program, Bono de Desarrollo Humano, by nearly US$ 50 per month would confer net benefits of almost 10% of their current income to the poorest quintile. In addition, more than 1.3 billion US$ would still be available for the public budget after the reform. Finally, we conduct expert interviews to evaluate the political and institutional challenges related to energy subsidy reform. We identify two combinations of reform options and recycling schemes that would benefit the poorest 40% of households and are deemed to be feasible: eliminating subsidies on gasoline while increasing the amount transferred to vulnerable households through the Bono de Desarrollo Humano and replacing universal LPG subsidies with targeted LPG vouchers.