Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes. Subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5 percent of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22 percent of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46 percent, broader vehicle externalities 13 percent, supply costs 11 percent, and general consumer taxes 8 percent. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced carbon emissions in 2013 by 21 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55 percent, while raising revenue of 4 percent, and social welfare by 2.2 percent, of global GDP. Terms of use: Documents inJEL-Codes: Q310, Q380, Q480.
This paper addresses the contested issue of the efficacy of targeting interventions in developing countries using a newly constructed comprehensive database of 111 targeted antipoverty interventions in 47 countries. While the median program transfers 25 percent more to the target group than would be the case with a universal allocation, more than a quarter of targeted programs are regressive. Countries with higher income or governance measures, and countries with better measures for voice do better at directing benefits toward poorer members of the population. Interventions that use means testing, geographic targeting, and self-selection based on a work requirement are all associated with an increased share of benefits going to the bottom two quintiles. Self-selection based on consumption, demographic targeting to the elderly, and community bidding show limited potential for good targeting. Proxy means testing, community-based selection of individuals, and demographic targeting to children show good results on average, but with considerable variation. Overall, there is considerable variation in targeting performance when we examine experiences with specific program types and specific targeting methods. Indeed a Theil decomposition of the variation in outcome shows that differences between targeting methods account for only 20 percent of overall variation. The remainder is due to differences found within categories. Thus, while these general patterns are instructive, differences in implementation are also quite important determinants of outcomes.
This paper reviews evidence on the impact of fuel subsidy reform on household welfare in developing countries. On average, the burden of subsidy reform is substantial and is approximately neutrally distributed across income groups; a $0.25 decrease in the per liter subsidy results in a 5% decrease in income for all groups. More than half of this impact arises from the indirect impact on prices of other goods and services consumed by households. Fuel subsidies are a costly approach to protecting the poor due to substantial benefit leakage to higher income groups; in absolute terms, the top income quintile captures six times more in subsidies than the bottom.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.