Reflections on the Double Dividend Debate
Reflections on the Double Dividend Debate
复制标题
DOI：
10.1023/a:1008216524348
复制
发表时间：
1998-04
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
John C. V. Pezzey;A. Park
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
John C. V. Pezzey;A. Park
我们调查碳税的历史，以市场为基础的工具（MBIs）的环境控制的范围，以及双重红利的辩论状态，以建议未来的研究方向MBIs。将MBI收入作为较低的扭曲性税收而不是一次性收入返还，会提高总福利，但出于利益集团在政治上可接受的原因，我们更青睐那些几乎没有或根本没有收入的MBI。与此同时，由于一般均衡与先前的扭曲性税收的相互作用，任何环境改善的总体理由都较弱。研究似乎最有必要量化的效率效益的市场控制的异质污染者，环境改善的好处，税收的相互作用的影响，和各种信息成本的MBI，所有在个案的基础上，不同的污染物和地方。
We survey the history of carbon taxation, the range of market-based instruments (MBIs) of environmental control, and the state of the double dividend debate, in order to suggest directions for future research into MBIs. Returning MBI revenues as lower distortionary taxes rather than as lump sums raises aggregate welfare, but we favour MBIs which raise little or no revenue, for reasons of political acceptability to interest groups. At the same time, the overall case for any environmental improvement is weaker because of general equilibrium interactions with prior distortionary taxes. Research seems most necessary on quantifying the efficiency benefits of market control of heterogeneous polluters, the benefits of environmental improvement, the tax interaction effect, and the various information costs of an MBI, all on a case-by-case basis for different pollutants and places.