• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Global climate change poses a threat to the well-being of humans and other living things through impacts on ecosystem functioning, biodiversity, capital productivity, and human health. This paper briefly surveys recent research on the economics of climate change, including theoretical insights and empirical findings that offer guidance to policy makers. Section 1 frames the climate change problem and indicates the ways that economic research can address it. Section 2 describes approaches to measuring the benefits and costs associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In Section 3 we discuss the implications of uncertainty for the timing and stringency of policies to address possible climate change. We then present issues related to policy design, including instrument choice (Section 4), flexibility (Section 5), and international coordination (Section 6). The final section offers general conclusions.

Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Abstract:
Global climate change poses a threat to the well-being of humans and other living things through impacts on ecosystem functioning, biodiversity, capital productivity, and human health. This paper briefly surveys recent research on the economics of climate change, including theoretical insights and empirical findings that offer guidance to policy makers. Section 1 frames the climate change problem and identifies ways that economic research can address it. Section 2 describes approaches to measuring the benefits and costs associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In Section 3 we discuss the implications of uncertainty for the timing and stringency of policies to address possible climate change. We then present issues related to policy design, including instrument choice (Section 4), flexibility (Section 5), and international coordination (Section 6). The final section offers general conclusions.

Climate change, environmental policy, greenhouse gases, externalities

Abstract:
This paper shows that the usual excess-burden triangle' formula performs poorly when used to assess the excess burden from taxes on intermediate inputs or consumer goods, and derives a practical alternative to this formula. We use an analytically tractable general equilibrium model to reveal how interactions with pre-existing taxes in other markets critically affect the excess burden of new taxes on intermediate inputs or consumer goods. The usual excess-burden formula ignores these interactions, and consequently yields highly inaccurate assessments of excess burden. Prior economic theory implicitly acknowledges the relevance of general-equilibrium interactions to excess burden, but does not indicate which interactions are most important or reveal the fundamental (first-order) contribution of these interactions. Moreover, prior studies do not offer a practical alternative to the usual excess-burden approximation. This paper helps fill the gap between theory and practice. First, it shows analytically that the importance of the interaction with a given pre-existing tax is roughly proportional to the amount of revenue raised by that tax. Second, the paper derives a practical alternative formula for approximating the excess burden from a commodity tax. Finally, it performs numerical simulations to illustrate the significance of adopting our alternative to the usual approximation formula. For realistic parameter values and a wide range of assumed rates for prior taxes, the usual formula captures less than half of the excess burden of taxes on commodities. When the rate of the new tax is small,' this formula captures less than five percent of the true excess burden. In contrast, the alternative approximation formula derived here yields estimates that are consistently within five percent of the actual excess burden.

Abstract:
This paper shows that the usual "excess-burden triangle" formula performs poorly when used to assess the excess burden from taxes on intermediate inputs or consumer goods, and derives a practical alternative to this formula. We use an analytically tractable general equilibrium model to reveal how interactions with pre-existing taxes in other markets critically affect the excess burden of new taxes on intermediate inputs or consumer goods. The usual excess-burden formula ignores these interactions, and consequently yields highly inaccurate assessments of excess burden.

Prior economic theory implicitly acknowledges the potential relevance of general-equilibrium interactions to excess burden, but does not indicate which interactions are most important or reveal the fundamental (first-order) contribution of these interactions. Moreover, prior studies do not offer a practical alternative to the usual excess-burden approximation. This paper helps fill the gap between theory and practice. First, it shows analytically that the importance of the interaction with a given pre-existing tax is roughly proportional to the amount of revenue raised by that tax. In most industrialized countries, factor taxes generate the bulk of government revenues, implying that the interactions with factor markets are most important. Second, the paper derives a practical alternative formula for approximating the excess burden from a commodity tax. Finally, it performs numerical simulations to illustrate the significance of adopting our alternative to the usual approximation formula. For realistic parameter values and for a wide range of assumed rates for prior taxes, the usual formula captures less than half of the excess burden of taxes on commodities. When the rate of the new tax is "small," this formula can be spectacularly off the mark, yielding a result that is less than five percent of the true excess burden. In contrast, the alternative approximation formula derived here yields estimates that are consistently within five percent of the actual excess burden.

This research has significant implications for future empirical studies of the cost of taxes on intermediate or consumer goods. Since the usual excess burden approximation has the potential to be dramatically misleading, we would endorse in its place the alternative formula presented here. This research also has important policy implications, suggesting that government programs financed by taxes on particular intermediate or consumer goods must meet a higher benefit hurdle than is often assumed.

Abstract:
This paper employs analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to assess the efficiency impacts of two policies to reduce U.S. carbon emissions - a carbon tax and a carbon quota ? taking into account the interactions between these policies and pre-existing tax distortions in factor markets. We show that tax interactions significantly raise the costs of both policies relative to what they would be in a first-best setting. In addition, we show that these interactions put the carbon quota at a significant efficiency disadvantage relative to the carbon tax: the costs of reducing emissions by 10 per cent are more than 300 percent higher under the carbon quota than under the carbon tax. This disadvantage reflects the inability of the quota policy to generate revenue that can be used to reduce pre-existing distortionary taxes. Indeed, second-best considerations severely limit the potential of a carbon quota to generate overall efficiency gains. Under our central estimates, a non-auctioned carbon quota (or set of grandfathered carbon emissions permits) cannot increase efficiency unless the marginal benefits from avoided future climate change are at least $25 per ton of carbon abatement. Most estimates of these marginal environmental benefits are well below $25 per ton. Thus, our analysis suggests that any carbon abatement by way of a non-auctioned quota will not be efficiency-improving. In contrast, we estimate that a revenue-neutral carbon tax can be efficiency-improving so long as marginal environmental benefits are positive.

Abstract:
This paper employs analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to assess the efficiency impacts of two policies to reduce U.S. carbon emissions -- a carbon tax and a carbon quota -- taking into account the inter- actions between these policies and pre-existing tax distortions in factor markets. We show that tax interactions significantly raise the costs of both policies relative to what they would be in a first-best setting. In addition, we show that these interactions put the carbon quota at a signficant efficiency disadvantage relative to the carbon tax: the costs of reducing emissions by 10 % are more than three times higher under the carbon quota than than under the carbon tax. This disadvantage reflects the inability of the quota policy to generate revenue that can be used to reduce pre-existing dis- tortionary taxes. Indeed, second-best considerations severely limit the potential of a carbon quota to general overall efficiency gains. Under our central estimates, a non-auctioned carbon quota (or set of grandfathered carbon emissions permits) cannot increase efficiency unless the marginal benefits from avoided future climate change are at least $25 per ton of carbon abatement. Most estimates of these marginal environmental benefits are well below $25 per ton. Thus, our analysis suggests that any carbon abatement by way of a non-auctioned quota will be efficiency-reducing. In contrast, a revenue-neutral carbon tax is found to be efficiency-improving so long as marginal environmental benefits are positive.

Abstract:
We examine the extent to which various environmental policy instruments meet major evaluation criteria, including cost-effectiveness, distributional equity, minimization of risk in the presence of uncertainty, and political feasibility. Instruments considered include emissions taxes, tradable emissions allowances, subsidies for emissions reductions, performance standards, technology mandates, and research and development subsidies. Several themes emerge. First, no single instrument is clearly superior along all the criteria. Second, significant trade-offs arise in the choice of instrument; for example, assuring a reasonable degree of distributional equity often will require a sacrifice of cost-effectiveness. Third, it is possible and sometimes desirable to design hybrid instruments that combine features of various instruments in their pure form. Fourth, for many pollution problems, more than one market failure may be involved, which may justify (on efficiency grounds, at least) employing more than one instrument. Finally, potential overlaps and undesirable interactions among environmental policy instruments are sometimes a matter of concern.

emissions control instruments, cost-effectiveness, distributional burden, induced innovation

Abstract:
In recent years there has been great interest in the possibility of substituting environmentally motivated or 'green' taxes for ordinary income taxes. Some have suggested that such revenue-neutral reforms might offer a 'double dividend:' not only (1) improve the environment but also (2) reduce certain costs of the tax system. This paper articulates different notions of 'double dividend' and examines the theoretical and empirical evidence for each. It also draws connections between the double dividend issue and principles of optimal environmetal taxation in a second-best setting. A weak double dividend claim is that returning tax revenues through cuts in distortionary taxes leads to cost savings relative to the case where revenues are returned lump sum. This claim is easily defended on theoretical grounds and (thankfully) receives wide support from numerical simulations. The stronger versions contend that revenue-neutral swaps of environmental taxes for ordinary distortionary taxes involve zero or negative gross costs. Analyses numerical results tend to cast doubt on the strong double dividend claim. Yet the theoretical case against the strong form is not air-tight, and numerical dividend claim is dividend claim is rejected (upheld) are related to the conditions where the second-best optimal environmental tax is less than (greater than) the marginal environmental damages. The difficulty of establishing a strong double dividend claim heightens the importance of attending to and evaluating the (environmental) benefits from environmental taxes.

Abstract:
This chapter examines government policy alternatives for protecting the environment. We compare environmentally motivated taxes and various non-tax environmental policy instruments in terms of their efficiency and distributional impacts. Much of the analysis is performed in a second-best setting where the government relies on distortionary taxes to finance some of its budget. The chapter indicates that in this setting, general equilibrium considerations have first-order importance in the evaluation of environmental policies. Indeed, some of the most important impacts of environmental policies take place outside of the market that is targeted for regulation. Section 2 examines the optimal (efficiency-maximizing) level of environmental taxes. Section 3 analyzes the impacts of environmental tax reforms, concentrating on revenue-neutral policies in which revenues from environmental taxes are used to finance cuts in ordinary, distortionary taxes. We explore in particular the circumstances under which the 'recycling' of revenues from environmental taxes through cuts in distortionary taxes can eliminate the non-environmental costs of such reforms. Section 4 compares environmental taxes with other policy instruments including emissions quotas, performance standards, and subsidies to abatement in economies with pre-existing distortionary taxes. We first compare these instruments assuming that regulators face no uncertainties as to firms' abatement costs or the benefits of environmental improvement, and then consider how uncertainty and associated monitoring and enforcement costs affect the choice among alternative policy instruments. Section 5 concentrates on the trade-offs between efficiency and distribution in a second-best setting. Section 6 offers conclusions.

Abstract:
This paper examines the implications of alternative allowance allocation designs under a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. We focus on the impacts on industry profits and overall economic output, employing a dynamic general equilibrium model of the U.S. economy. The model's unique treatment of capital dynamics permits close attention to profit impacts.We find that the effects on profits depend critically on the method of allowance allocation. Freely allocating fewer than 15 percent of the emissions allowances generally suffices to prevent profit losses among the eight industries that, without free allowances or other compensation, would suffer the largest percentage losses of profit. Freely allocating 100 percent of the allowances substantially overcompensates these industries, in many cases causing more than a doubling of profits. These results indicate that profit preservation is consistent with substantial use of auctioning and the generation of considerable auction revenue. GDP costs of cap and trade depend critically on how such revenues are used. When these revenues are employed to finance cuts in marginal income tax rates, the resulting GDP costs are about 33 percent lower than when all allowances are freely allocated and no auction revenue is generated. On the other hand, when auction proceeds are returned to the economy in lump-sum fashion (for example, as rebate checks to households), the potential cost-advantages of auctioning are not realized.Our results are robust to cap-and-trade policies that differ according to policy stringency, the availability of offsets, and the extent of opportunities for intertemporal trading of allowances.

Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Abstract:
There has been intense focus on the issue of how emissions allowances might be allocated under a potential federal cap-and-trade program. What fraction of the allowances should be auctioned out, as opposed to given out free? How much free allocation would be sufficient to preserve profits in various industries? What are the economy-wide implications of alternative uses of whatever auction revenues are collected?

This paper employs a dynamic general equilibrium model of the U.S. economy to address these issues. The model’s unique treatment of capital dynamics permits close attention to the impacts of alternative policies on industry profits.

We find that freely allocating a relatively small fraction of the emissions allowances generally suffices to prevent profit losses among the eight industries that, without free allowances or other compensation, would suffer the largest percentage losses of profit. Under a wide range of cap-and-trade designs, freely allocating less than 15 percent of the total allowances prevents profit losses to these most vulnerable industries. Allocating 100 percent of the allowances substantially overcompensates these industries, in many cases causing more than a doubling of profits.

These results indicate that profit preservation is consistent with substantial use of auctioning and the generation of considerable auction revenue. GDP costs of cap and trade depend critically on how such revenues are used. When these revenues are employed to finance cuts in marginal income tax rates, the resulting GDP costs are about 33 percent lower than in the case where all allowances are freely allocated and no auction revenue is generated. On the other hand, when the auction proceeds are returned to the economy in lump-sum fashion (for example, as rebate checks to households), the potential cost-advantages of auctioning are not realized.

Our results are robust to cap-and-trade policies that differ according to the presence or absence of provisions for offsets or intertemporal banking of allowances, or in terms of policy stringency.

cap and trade, emissions allowance allocation, industry impacts, general equilibrium modeling, climate change policy

Abstract:
This paper explores how the costs of meeting given aggregate targets for pollution emissions change with the imposition of the requirement that key pollution-related industries be compensated for potential losses of profit from the pollution regulation. Using analytically and numerically solved equilibrium models, we compare the incidence and costs of emissions taxes, fuel (intermediate input) taxes, performance standards and mandated technologies in the absence and presence of this compensation requirement. Compensation is provided either through industry tax credits or industry-specific cuts in capital tax rates. We decompose the added costs from the compensation requirement into (1) an increase in intrinsic abatement cost, reflecting a lowered efficiency of pollution abatement, and (2) a lump-sum compensation cost that captures the efficiency costs of financing the compensation. The compensation requirement affects these components differently, depending on the policy instrument involved and the required extent of pollution abatement. As a result, it can change the cost-rankings of the different instruments. In particular, when compensation is provided through tax credits, the lump-sum compensation cost is higher under the emissions tax than under the command-and control policies (performance standards and mandated technologies) - a reflection of the higher compensation requirements under the emissions tax. When the required pollution reduction is modest, imposing the compensation requirement causes the emissions tax to lose its status as the least costly instrument and to become more costly than command and control policies. In contrast, when required abatement is extensive, the emissions tax again becomes the most-cost effective instrument because of its advantages in terms of lower intrinsic abatement cost.

environmental instrument choice, pollution control, compensation requirements, emissions abatement costs

Abstract:
The most cost-effective policies for achieving CO2 abatement (e.g., carbon taxes) fail to get off the ground politically because of unacceptable distributional consequences. This paper explores CO2 abatement policies designed to address distributional concerns. Using an intertemporal numerical general equilibrium model of the U.S., we examine how efficiency costs change when these policies include features that neutralize adverse impacts on energy industries. We find that avoiding adverse impacts on profits and equity values in fossil fuel industries involves a relatively small efficiency cost. This stems from the fact that CO2 abatement policies have the potential to generate revenues that are very large relative to the potential loss of profit. By enabling firms to retain only a very small fraction of these potential revenues, the government can protect firms' profits and equity values. Thus, the government needs to grandfather only a small percentage of CO2 emissions permits or, similarly, must exempt only a small fraction of emissions from the base of a carbon tax. These policies involve a small sacrifice of potential government revenue. Such revenue has an efficiency value because it can finance cuts in pre-existing distortionary taxes. Because the revenue sacrifice is small, the efficiency cost is small as well. We also find that there is a very large difference between preserving firms' profits and preserving their tax payments. Offsetting producers' carbon tax payments on a dollar-for-dollar basis (through cuts in corporate tax rates, for example) substantially overcompensates firms, raising profits and equity values significantly relative to the unregulated situation. This reflects the fact that producers can shift onto consumers most of the burden from a carbon tax. The efficiency costs of such policies are far greater than the costs of policies that do not overcompensate firms.

Abstract:
This paper presents a multisector general equilibrium model that is capable of providing integrated assessments of the economy`s short- and long- run responses to tax policy changes. The model contains an explicit treatment of firm`s investment decisions according to which producers exhibit forward- looking behavior and take account of adjustment costs inherent in the installation of new capital. This permits an examination of both short-run effects of tax policy on industry profits and asset prices as well as 1ong-term effects on capital accumulation. The model contains considerable detail on U.S. industry, corporate financial policies, and the U.S. tax system. Simulation results reveal that the effects of tax policy differ significantly depending on whether the policy is oriented toward new or old capital measures like the investment tax credit stimulate investment without conferring significant windfall gains on corporate shareholders. Corporate tax rate reductions with the same revenue cost, on the other hand, yield large windfalls to shareholders while providing only a modest stimulus to investment in plant and equipment.

Abstract:
This paper explores the significance of policy-induced technological change for the design of carbon-abatement policies. We derive analytical expressions characterizing optimal CO2 abatement and carbon tax profiles under different specifications for the channels through which technological progress occurs. We consider both R&D-based and learning-by-doing-based knowledge accumulation, and examine each specification under both a cost-effectiveness and a benefit-cost policy criterion.

We show analytically that the presence of induced technological change (ITC) implies a lower time profile of optimal carbon taxes. The impact of ITC on the optimal abatement path varies. When knowledge is gained through R&D investments, the presence of ITC justifies shifting some abatement from the present to the future. However, when knowledge is generated through learning-by-doing, the impact on the timing of abatement is analytically ambiguous.

Illustrative numerical simulations indicate that the impact of ITC upon overall costs and optimal carbon taxes can be quite large in a cost-effectiveness setting but typically is much smaller under a benefit-cost policy criterion. The impact of ITC on the timing of abatement is very weak, and the effect (applicable in the benefit-cost case) on total abatement over time is generally small as well, especially when knowledge is accumulated via R&D.

Abstract:
This paper examines the choice between revenue-raising and non-revenue-raising instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting with pre- existing factor taxes. We find that interactions with pre-existing taxes influence the costs of regulation and seriously militate against pollution abatement policies that do not raise revenue. If the marginal environmental benefits from pollution reductions are below a certain threshold value, any amount of pollution abatement through non-revenue-raising (NRR) policies like emissions quotas is efficiency-reducing. Under conditions approximating S02 emissions from electric power plants in the U.S., efficiency gains vanish if marginal environmental benefits are below $109 per ton and an NRR policy is employed. These results are largely independent of the size of the regulated sector relative to the overall economy and stem from two underlying effects. The tax-interaction effect is the adverse impact in factor markets arising from reductions in after-tax returns to factors associated with the higher production costs caused by environmental regulation. This effect leads to significantly higher efficiency costs than what would apply in a first-best world with no pre-existing taxes. Revenue-raising regulations (taxes) enjoy a revenue-recycling effect that offsets much of the tax-interaction effect, but non-revenue-raising regulations (quotas) enjoy no such offset.For any target level of emissions reduction, the gross efficiency costs of quotas are higher than those of revenue-raising policies.. To the extent that government regulations of international trade or agricultural production raise the costs of output and thus reduce real factor returns, they generate much higher social costs than indicated by partial equilibrium analyses.

Abstract:
Using analytical and numerical general equilibrium models, we show that pre-existing factor taxes produce a "tax-interaction effect" that substantially increases the costs of pollution taxes and quotas. Under policies that raise revenue and recycle it through cuts in marginal factor tax rates, this effect is partially offset by a "revenue-recycling effect." Grandfathered pollution quotas, such as those used under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to regulate electric utilities' SO2 emissions, do not benefit from this offset. The cost differential between policies that do or do not exploit the revenue-recycling effect depends crucially on the extent of emissions reduction. We examine these theoretical findings empirically in the context of U.S. policies to reduce SO2 emissions.

Abstract:
This paper examines the choice between revenue-raising and non-revenue-raising instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting with pre-existing factor taxes. We find that interactions with pre-existing taxes fundamentally influence the costs of regulation and seriously militate against pollution abatement policies that do not raise revenue. Indeed, if the marginal environmental benefits from pollution reductions are below a certain threshold value, then any amount of pollution abatement through non-revenue- raising (NRR) policies like emissions quotas is efficiency- reducing. Under conditions roughly approximating SO2 emissions from electric power plants in the U.S., efficiency gains vanish if marginal environmental benefits are below $109 per ton and an NRR policy is employed. Moreover, imposing the "Pigovian" (rather than second-best optimal) level of quotas can reduce welfare, even when environmental benefits are as high as $220 per ton. These results are largely independent of the size of the regulated sector relative to the overall economy.These findings stem from two underlying effects. The tax- interaction effect is the adverse impact in factor markets arising from reductions in after-tax returns to factors associated with the higher production costs caused by environmental regulation. This effect leads to significantly higher efficiency costs than what would apply in a first-best world with no pre-existing taxes. Revenue-raising regulations (taxes) enjoy a revenue-recycling effect that offsets much of the tax-interaction effect, but non-revenue-raising regulations (quotas) enjoy no such offset. Consequently, for any given target level of emissions reduction, the gross efficiency costs of non-revenue-raising policies are higher than those of revenue-raising policies.These general equilibrium results are relevant to government regulation outside the environmental area. To the extent that government regulations of international trade or agricultural production raise the costs of output and thereby reduce real factor returns, they can generate much higher social costs than would be indicated by partial equilibrium analyses.

Abstract:
Most studies of the optimal provision of public goods or the excess burden from taxation assume that individual utility is independent of other individuals' consumption. This paper investigates public good provision and excess burden in a model that allows for interdependence in consumption in the form of status (relative consumption) effects. In the presence of such effects, consumption and labor taxes no longer are pure distortionary taxes but have a corrective tax element that addresses an externality from consumption. As a result, the marginal excess burden of consumption taxes is lower than in the absence of status effects, and will be negative if the consumption tax rate is below the "Pigouvian" rate. Correspondingly, when consumption or labor tax rates are below the Pigouvian rate, the second-best level of public goods provision is above the first-best level, contrary to findings from models without status effects. For plausible functional forms and parameters relating to status effects, the marginal excess burden from existing U.S. labor taxes is substantially lower than in most prior studies, and is negative in some cases.

status effects, excess burden, deadweight loss, public goods provision, corrective taxation, consumption externality, first best, second best, taxation, consumption externality, first best, second best

Abstract:
This paper examines 'traditional' (non-environmental) efficiency consequences and environmental effects of two energy tax policies: a tax on fossil and synthetic fuels based on Btu (or energy) content and a tax on consumer purchases of gasoline. It uses a model that uniquely combines attention to details of the U.S. tax system with a consolidated treatment of U.S. energy use and pollution emissions. On traditional efficiency grounds, each of the energy taxes emerges as more costly to the economy than increases in personal or corporate income taxes of equal revenue yield. Simulation experiments indicate that the excess costs of energy taxes are due partly to their relatively narrow tax base. The Btu tax's application to gross output (as compared with net output under an income tax) serves to expand its excess costs; in contrast, the gasoline tax's focus on consumption (as opposed to income) tends to mitigate its excess costs. On the environmental side, we find that for each of eight major air pollutants considered, energy taxes induce emissions reductions that are at least nine times larger than the reductions under the income tax alternatives. Overall, this study indicates that the Btu and gasoline taxes considered are inferior to the alternatives on narrow efficiency grounds but superior on environmental grounds. Whether the environmental attractions of energy taxes are large enough to offset their relatively high non-environmental costs remains an open question.

Abstract:
There has been keen interest in recent years in environmentally motivated or 'green' tax reforms. This paper employs analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to investigate the costs of such reforms, concentrating on the question of whether these costs can be eliminated when revenues from new environmental taxes are devoted to cuts in marginal income tax rates. A distinguishing feature of the analytical model is its attention to the role of pre-existing inefficiencies in the tax treatment of labor and capital and the associated role of tax-shifting. This model indicates how the prospects for a zero- or negative-cost environmental tax reform are enhanced to the extent that environmental tax reforms shift the tax burden toward the less efficient (undertaxed) factor. Results from the numerical model are interpreted in light of the analytical model's findings. These results indicate that the revenue- neutral substitution of Btu or gasoline taxes for typical income taxes usually entails positive gross costs to the economy. In the case of the gasoline tax, a significant tax shifting effect serves to lower the policy's gross costs. This accounts for the lower gross cost of the gasoline tax compared with the Btu tax. Under neither policy is tax-shifting substantial enough to eliminate the overall gross costs.

Abstract:
This paper uses analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to study the costs of achieving pollution reductions under a range of environmental policy instruments in a second-best setting with pre-existing factor taxes. We compare the costs and efficiency impacts of emissions taxes, emissions quotas, fuels taxes, performance standards, and mandated technologies, and explore how costs change with the magnitude of pre-existing taxes and the extent of pollution abatement. We find that the presence of distortionary taxes raises the costs of pollution abatement under each instrument relative to its costs in a first-best world. This extra cost is an increasing function of the magnitude of pre-existing tax rates. For plausible values of pre-existing tax rates and other parameters, the cost increase for all policies is substantial (35 % or more). The impact of pre-existing taxes is large for non-auctioned emissions quotas, the cost increase can be several hundred percent. Earlier work on instrument choice emphasized the potential reduction in compliance cost from converting fixed emissions quotas into tradeable emissions permits. Our results show the regulator's decision to auction or grandfather emissions rights can have important cost impacts. Similarly, the choice of how to recycle revenues from environmentally motivated taxes can be as important to cost as whether the tax takes the form of an emissions tax or fuel tax, particularly when modest emissions reductions are involved. In both first- and second-best settings, the cost differences across instruments depend on the extent of pollution abatement under consideration. Total abatement costs differ markedly at low levels of abatement. Strikingly, for all instruments except the fuel tax these costs converge to the same value as abatement levels approach 100 percent.

Abstract:
This paper employs analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to examine the costs of achieving pollution reductions under a range of environmental policy instruments in a second-best setting with pre-existing factor taxes. We compare the costs and overall efficiency impacts of emissions taxes, emissions quotas, fuels taxes, performance standards, and mandated technologies, and explore how costs change with the magnitude of pre-existing taxes and the extent of pollution abatement.

We find that the presence of distortionary taxes raises the costs of pollution abatement under each instrument relative to its costs in a first-best world. This extra cost is an increasing function of pre-existing tax rates. For plausible values of pre-existing tax rates and other parameters, the cost increase for all policies is substantial (35 percent or more). The impact of pre-existing taxes is particularly large for non-auctioned emissions quotas: here the cost increase can be several hundred percent. Earlier analyses have emphasized the potential cost-savings from converting fixed emissions quotas into tradeable emissions permits. Our results indicate that the regulator's decision whether to auction or grandfather emissions rights can have equally important cost impacts.

In both first- and second-best settings, the cost differences across instruments depend importantly on the extent of pollution abatement under consideration. Total abatement costs differ markedly at low levels of abatement. Strikingly, for all instruments except the fuel tax these costs converge to the same value as abatement levels approach 100 percent.

Abstract:
This paper employs analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to examine the costs of achieving pollution reductions under a range of environmental policy instruments in a second-best setting with pre-existing factor taxes. We compare the costs and overall efficiency impacts of emissions taxes, emissions quotas, fuels taxes, performance standards, and mandated technologies, and explore how costs change with the magnitude of pre-existing taxes and the extent of pollution abatement.

We find that the presence of distortionary taxes raises the costs of pollution abatement under each instrument relative to its costs in a first-best world. This extra cost is an increasing function of the magnitude of pre-existing tax rates. For plausible values of pre-existing tax rates and other parameters, the cost increase for all policies is substantial (35 percent or more). The impact of pre-existing taxes is particularly large for non-auctioned emissions quotas: here the cost increase can be several hundred percent. Earlier work on instrument choice has emphasized the potential reduction in compliance cost achievable by converting fixed emissions quotas into tradeable emissions permits. Our results indicate that the regulator's decision whether to auction or grandfather emissions rights can have equally important cost impacts. Similarly, the choice as to how to recycle revenues from environmentally motivated taxes (whether to return the revenues in lump-sum fashion or via cuts in marginal tax rates) can be as important to cost as the decision whether the tax takes the form of an emissions tax or fuel tax, particularly when modest emissions reductions are involved.

In both first- and second-best settings, the cost differences across instruments depend importantly on the extent of pollution abatement under consideration. Total abatement costs differ markedly at low levels of abatement. Strikingly, for all instruments except the fuel tax these costs converge to the same value as abatement levels approach 100 percent.

Abstract:
No abstract is available for this paper.

Abstract:
This paper explores how the costs of meeting given aggregate targets for pollution emissions change with the imposition of the requirement that key pollution-related industries be compensated for potential losses of profit from the pollution regulation. Using analytically and numerically solved equilibrium models, we compare the incidence and economy-wide costs of emissions taxes, fuel (intermediate input) taxes, performance standards and mandated technologies in the absence and presence of this compensation requirement. Compensation is provided either through lump-sum industry tax credits or industry-specific cuts in capital tax rates. We decompose the added costs from the compensation requirement into (1) an increase in intrinsic abatement cost, reflecting a lowered efficiency of pollution abatement, and (2) a lump-sum compensation cost that captures the efficiency costs of financing the compensation. The compensation requirement affects these components differently and thus can alter the cost-rankings of policies. When compensation is provided through tax credits, the lump-sum compensation cost is higher under the emissions tax than under performance standards and mandated technologies -- a reflection of the emission tax's higher compensation requirements. If in this setting the required pollution reduction is modest, imposing the compensation requirement causes the emissions tax to become more costly than command and control policies. In contrast, if required abatement is extensive, the emissions tax emerges as the most cost-effective policy because its relatively low intrinsic abatement costs assume greater importance.

Abstract:
Many pollution-related industries wield strong political influence and can effectively veto policy initiatives that would harm their profits. A politically realistic approach to environmental policy therefore seems to require the alleviation of significant profitlosses to these industries. The regulatory authority can do this by freely allocating some emissions permits or by exempting some inframarginal emissions from a pollution tax. However, such policies compel the government to forego an efficient potential revenue source and to rely more heavily on ordinary distortionary taxes. As a result, achieving distributional objectives comes at a cost in terms of efficiency. Using analytically and numerically solved equilibrium models, we analyze the efficiency costs implied by the distributional constraint that adverse impacts on profits in particular industries must be avoided. Both models indicate that the efficiency cost implied by this constraint dwarfs the other efficiency costs when the required amount of abatement is very small. When the abatement requirement becomes more extensive, however, the cost of this constraint diminishes relative to the other efficiency costs of pollution-control. We also calculate the compensation ratio: the share of potential policy revenue that the government must forego to protect the industries in question. We show how this ratio is affected by the extent of abatement, supply and demand elasticities, and the potential for end-of-pipe treatment. One definition of this ratio corresponds to the share of pollution permits that must be freely allocated to prevent profit-losses in the targeted industries. Numerical simulations of sulfur dioxide pollution-control suggest that the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative would exceed this ratio, freely allocating more permits than necessary to preserve profits. Our models also highlight significant differences between gross and net policy revenues: when abatement is extensive, a large fraction of the revenue collected from emissions permits or taxes is offset by the revenue-loss from erosion of the base of existing factor taxes.

Efficiency, costs, environmental tax, pollution, environmental policy

Abstract:
A politically realistic approach to environmental policy seems to require avoiding significant profit-losses in major pollution-related industries. The government can avoid such losses by freely allocating some emissions permits or by exempting some inframarginal emissions from a pollution tax. However, preventing profit-losses in this way involves an efficiency cost because it compels the government to forego especially efficient sources of revenue and to rely more heavily on ordinary, distortionary taxes. Using analytically and numerically solved equilibrium models, we analyze these efficiency costs. We find that when the required amount of abatement is small, the efficiency cost implied by the profits-constraint dwarfs the other efficiency costs of pollution-control. When the abatement requirement becomes more extensive, the cost of this constraint diminishes relative to the other efficiency costs. We also calculate and analyze the determinants of the 'gross compensation ratio' - the share of pollution permits that must be freely allocated to prevent profit-losses in the targeted industries. Numerical simulations of sulfur dioxide pollution-control suggest that the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative would exceed this ratio, freely allocating more permits than necessary to preserve profits.

Abstract:
This paper uses a dynamic computable general equilibrium model to compare, in an economy open to international capital flows, the effects of two U.S. policies intended to promote domestic capital formation. The two policies -- the introduction of an investment tax credit (ITC) and a reduction in the statutory corporate income tax rate -- differ in their treatment of old (existing) and new capital. The model features adjustment dynamics, intertemporal optimization by U.S. and foreign households and firms endowed with model-consistent expectations, imperfect substitution between domestic and foreign assets in portfolios, an integrated treatment of the current and capital accounts of the balance of payments, and industry disaggregation in the United States. We find that the two policies (scaled to imply the same revenue cost) differ in their consequences for foreign and domestic welfare, the balance of payments accounts, international competitiveness, and U.S. industrial structure. The ITC produces larger domestic welfare gains because it is more effective in reducing intertemporal distortions, while the two policies have similar implications for intersectoral efficiency. From the point of view of domestic welfare, the relative attractiveness of the ITC is enhanced when international capital mobility is taken into account, a reflection of international transfers of wealth associated with foreign ownership of part of the U.S. capital stock. Whereas reducing the corporate tax rate improves the trade balance initially, introducing the ITC causes a deterioration of the trade balance in the short run. Reflecting a lower real exchange rate, export-oriented sectors perform better relative to non-tradable industries under a lower corporate tax rate than in the presence of the lTC, especially in the short run.

Abstract:
No abstract is available for this paper.

Abstract:
This paper employs a general equilibrium model to assess the effects of major components of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 on the performance of housing and other industries. The model considers both short-term and long-term effects on housing demands, house values, and investment in housing. Model results indicate that in the short run, the recent cuts in corporate tax rates, elimination of investment tax credits, and scaling back of depreciation deductions together have negative implications for investment in non-residential capital but positive effects on housing investment. This mainly reflects the fact that prior to the '86 tax reforms, investment tax credits and favorable depreciation rules disproportionately benefited non-housing industries; thus their removal especially affects industries other than housing and helps "crowd in" housing investment. Over the long term, however, the tax changes imply lower investment in housing as well as in other types of capital. The reduced housing investment stems from adverse effects of the reforms on aggregate output and real income.

Abstract:
In an open economy, savings- and investment-promoting policies may have very different effects on the capital account and on the viability of export-oriented and import-competing industries. The nature of the effects is often ambiguous in analytical models. This paper employs a simulation model that combines a detailed treatment of industry interactions, attention to adjustment dynamics, and an integrated treatment of current and capital account transactions to investigate these effects in both the short and long run. We focus on the different effects of savings- and investment-promoting U.S. tax policies on the viability of U.S. export industries. We compare results under the assumption of no international capital mobility (and no international asset transactions) with those under the assumption of full international mobility (which assumes no barriers to or costs of such transactions). Within the case of capital mobility, we consider the importance of the degree of international asset substitutability -- the extent to which individuals respond to differences in anticipated rates of return by altering their portfolios. Simulation results show that the impacts on export industries differ fundamentally depending on the degree of international capital mobility. In the absence of such mobility, savings- and investment- promoting policies have similar effects on U.S. export industries, with insubstantial effects in the short run and larger. beneficial long-run effects that reflect increases in the productiveness of the U.S. economy. Once international capital mobility is accounted for, however, the effects of the two policies differ from one another in both the short and long run. Subsidizing saving helps U.S. export industries initially but hurts them over the longer term. The reverse is true for a policy that subsidizes investment. These differences, which are robust across a range of model specifications and parameter assumptions, stem from the very different implications of the two types of policies for the capital account of the balance of payments.

Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Abstract:
There is a growing recognition among public finance economists of the inappropriateness of closed economy models for analyzing alternative U.S. tax policies. In response to this, this paper reports on four different external sector specifications for the Fullerton-Shoven-Whalley general equilibrium tax model of the U.S. The alternative formulations permit an assessment of their impact on model findings and provide the enhanced capability for analysis of tax policies which connect closely with foreign trade issues (such as a VAT). Results indicate that the different external sector formulations can substantially affect the model`s findings. When the model permits international capital flows, the effect of a tax policy can be quite different from what a closed economy model would predict. Capital mobility substantially increases the efficiency gain implied by corporate tax integration, while it more than eliminates the efficiency advantage of moving from an income tax to a consumption tax (unless adjustments are made in the foreign tax credit). The sensitivity of the efficiency evaluation of domestic tax policies to the functioning of international capital markets suggests the need for further research to determine precisely how those markets operate.

Abstract:
No abstract is available for this paper.

Abstract:
Fourteen U.S. states recently pledged to adopt limits on automobile greenhouse gases (GHGs) per mile in an effort to reduce GHG emissions. We show that, because of interactions between this effort and the federal CAFE standard, 70-80 percent of the emissions reductions from new cars in adopting states will be offset because of policy-induced adjustments in new car markets elsewhere and in used car markets. Interactions with the CAFE standard also compromise the state-level effort’s ability to reduce emissions through induced technological progress. These substantial emissions-offsets reflect the nesting of state-federal regulations and would likely arise under several newly-proposed state initiatives.

environmental regulation, climate change policy, state-federal interactions; emissions leakage, CAFE standards, greenhouse gas limits, automobile emissions limits, nested regulation

Abstract:
Fourteen U.S. states recently pledged to adopt limits on greenhouse gases (GHGs) per mile of light-duty automobiles. Previous analyses predicted this action would significantly reduce emissions from new cars in these states, but ignored possible offsetting emissions increases from policy-induced adjustments in new car markets in other (non-adopting) states and in the used car market.Such offsets (or leakage) reflect the fact that the state-level effort interacts with the national corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard: the state-level initiative effectively loosens the national standard and gives automakers scope to profitably increase sales of high-emissions automobiles in non-adopting states. In addition, although the state-level effort may well spur the invention of fuel- and emissions-saving technologies, interactions with the federal CAFE standard limit the nationwide emissions reductions from such advances. Using a multi-period numerical simulation model, we find that 70-80 percent of the emissions reductions from new cars in adopting states are offset by emissions leakage. This research examines a particular instance of a general issue of policy significance - namely, problems from nested federal and state environmental regulations. Such nesting implies that similar leakage difficulties are likely to arise under several newly proposed state-level initiatives.

Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Abstract:
This paper uses analytical and simulation models to study the impact of temporary and permanent import surcharges on the U.S. balance of trade. The analytical model of a two-country, two-commodity, two-period endowment economy brings out the intersectoral and intertemporal substitution effects generated by import surcharges. This model shows that the trade balance impact of these initiatives is ambiguous in sign even under restrictive assumptions. We therefore apply a simulation model to gauge the effects under realistic values for parameters. The simulation model differs from others that have analyzed import surcharges in combining sectoral disaggregation with an integrated treatment of current and capital account transactions. The combination is made possible by the model's attention to both intra- and intertemporal aspects of household and producer decisions. Simulations are performed under different assumptions about the sources of the U.S. trade deficits and the timing of the surcharge. In each case, surcharges strengthen the trade balance in the short run but worsen subsequently. The results highlight the usefulness of analyzing the crade balance effects of commercial policies with a dynamic framework that incorporates intertemporal balance of payments constraints.

Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

Abstract:
This paper articulates and applies frameworks for examining whether consumption is excessive. We consider two criteria for the possible excessiveness (or insufficiency) of current consumption. One is an intertemporal utility-maximization criterion: actual current consumption is deemed excessive if it is higher than the level of current consumption on the consumption path that maximizes the present discounted value of utility. The other is a sustainability criterion, which requires that current consumption be consistent with non-declining living standards over time. We extend previous theoretical approaches by offering a formula for the sustainability criterion that accounts for population growth and technological change. In applying this formula, we find that some poor regions of the world are failing to meet the sustainability criterion: in these regions, genuine wealth per capita is falling as investments in human and manufactured capital are not sufficient to offset the depletion of natural capital.

Sustainability, overconsumption, genuine investment, genuine savings, genuine wealth

Abstract:
This paper uses analytically tractable and numerically solved general equilibrium models to examine the significance of pre-existing distortions in factor markets for revenue-neutral environmental tax reforms and for various policies involving pollution quotas and permits. Results indicate that pre-existing factor taxes generally raise the costs of these environmental policies. This reflects a tax-interaction effect: the lowering of real factor returns resulting from the higher output prices occasioned by environmental taxes and other regulations. The revenue-recycling effect - stemming from the use of environmental tax revenues to finance cuts in pre-existing factor taxes - helps reduce policy costs, but under plausible assumptions does not eliminate the costs of such policies: the double dividend does not materialize. Even if it does not produce a double dividend, the revenue-recycling effect is important for reducing policy costs. Policies that fail to exploit the revenue-recycling effect suffer significant disadvantages in terms of efficiency. Like environmental taxes, freely allocated (or grandfathered) pollution quotas or permits, for example, produce a costly tax-interaction effect, yet such quotas or permits do not enjoy the offsetting revenue-recycling effect. Auctioning the permits or quotas makes possible the revenue-recycling effect and allows given pollution-abatement targets to be achieved at lower cost. The failure to exploit the revenue-recycling effect can alter the sign of overall efficiency impact. Indeed, if marginal environmental benefits from pollution reductions are below a certain threshold value, then any level of pollution abatement through freely allocated quotas or permits is efficiency-reducing. The tax-interaction effect is relevant to government regulation outside the environmental area. To the extent that regulations on international trade or agricultural production raise output prices and thereby reduce real factor returns, these regulations exacerbate the factor-market distortions from pre-existing taxes and thus involve higher social costs than would be indicated by partial equilibrium analyses.

Abstract:
This paper shows that under typical conditions the simple "excess-burden triangle" formula substantially underestimates the excess burden of commodity taxes. This formula performs poorly because it ignores general equilibrium interactions - most importantly, interactions between the market for the taxed commodity and the labor market. Using analytically tractable and numerically solved general equilibrium models, we show that the simple formula tends to significantly understate excess burden, in some cases by a factor of ten or more. We then derive an implementable alternative to the simple formula. This alternative formula captures interactions that are left out of the simple one, and as a result it is both unbiased and usually more accurate.

Many prior theoretical studies have shown that general equilibrium interactions affect excess burden, but earlier work has not appreciated the bias associated with ignoring these interactions or recognized the quantitative importance of this bias. There are two main sources of our findings. The first is the recognition that the interaction between a new commodity tax and existing labor taxes will tend to be far more important than interactions with other taxes. Second, we focus on the case where the taxed commodity is average in terms of its substitutability with leisure. This greatly simplifies the analysis and allows us to derive an implementable alternative to the simple excess burden formula. One implication of this research is that government programs financed by taxes on particular intermediate or consumer goods must meet a higher benefit hurdle than is often assumed.

excess burden, Harberger triangle, general equilibrium efficiency analysis, excess burden approximation

Abstract:
In recent years there has been great interest in the possibility of substituting environmentally motivated or "green" taxes for ordinary income taxes. Some have suggested that such revenue- neutral reforms might offer a "double dividend:" not only (1) improve the environment but also (2) reduce certain costs of the tax system. This paper articulates different notions of "double dividend" and examines the theoretical and empirical evidence for each. It also draws connections between the double dividend issue and principles of optimal environmental taxation in a second-best setting. A weak double dividend claim is that returning tax revenues through cuts in distortionary taxes leads to cost savings relative to the case where revenues are returned lump sum. This claim is easily defended on theoretical grounds and (thankfully) receives wide support from numerical simulations. The stronger versions contend that revenue-neutral swaps of environmental taxes for ordinary distortionary taxes involve zero or negative gross costs. Theoretical analyses and numerical results tend to cast doubt on the strong double dividend claim. At the same time, the theoretical case against the strong form is not air-tight, and the numerical evidence is mixed. In simple models, the conditions under which the strong double dividend claim is rejected (upheld) are closely related to the conditions under which the second-best optimal environmental tax is less than (greater than) the marginal environmental damages.

Abstract:
Changes in capital taxes by one economy spill onto other economies with internationally mobile capital. We evaluate these impacts using a two-region, intertemporal general equilibrium model. The foreign economy's unilateral reduction in corporate income taxation has positive but small effects on U.S. welfare. In contrast, unilateral reductions in personal income taxation impose large negative spillovers. The differences result from CIT being source-based and PIT residence-based. The CIT cut reduces tax burdens to U.S. residents who invest abroad, while the PIT cut reduces foreigners' tax burdens only. Through general equilibrium adjustments neglected in simpler models, the PIT cut lowers U.S. residents' welfare.

Abstract:
This paper employs analytical and numerical general equilibrium models to examine the optimal setting of environmental taxes in the presence of pre-existing distortionary taxes. Both models indicate, contrary to what several analysts have suggested, that the optimal environmental tax rate in this setting is less than the rate implied by the "Pigovian principle," which would equate the tax to the marginal environmental damage from pollution. Numerical results show that previous studies may have seriously overstated the size of the optimal carbon tax by disregarding pre-existing taxes, and that the optimal carbon tax can be negative when revenues from the tax are recycled in a lump-sum fashion.