All Issue

2022 Vol.21, Issue 2 Preview Page

Research Article

Effects of Carbon Taxation on Household Welfare and CO2 Emission

탄소세가 가계의 소득분배와 탄소 배출에 미치는 영향: QUAIDS 모형을 사용하여

Jaiwon Lee1
,
Woohyeon Kim2*
이 재원1
,
김 우현2*
1Researcher, Korea Institute of Public Finance
2Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Urban Public Health, University of Seoul
1한국조세재정연구원 연구원
2서울시립대학교 도시보건대학원 조교수
*Corresponding Author
30 September 2022. pp. 33-74
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

We analyze the distributional impacts of carbon taxation in South Korea using QUAIDS model. A full matrix of budget and price elasticities was estimated, allowing us to incorporate household behavioural changes in response to the price changes of energy goods when carbon taxation and subsequent lump-sum revenue recycling scheme were introduced. We simulate the scenario in which carbon tax at the rate of KRW 50,000/tCO2 was introduced and find it to be regressive ― though the direct lump-sum cash transfer of total tax revenues to households leads to the progressive outcome. The redistribution of tax revenues leads to the increase of use of energy goods and the CO2- emission-saving potential can shrink to 41.29% of the reductions achieved under no-revenue-recycling scenario. Greater equality and lower emission reduction was achieved when the redistribution was more narrowly targeted to low-income households. Overall, there is a trade-off between addressing the regressivity of a carbon tax and achieving targeted emission reduction. This leads to the conclusion that the rate of carbon tax incorporating lump-sum redistribution needs to be higher than the rate without revenue-recycling scheme to achieve equivalent level of emission reduction target.

Keywords
Carbon tax
Distributional effects
NASTAB
Universal basic income
Tax revenue recycling
QUAIDS

본 연구는 탄소세 부과 시 가계가 소비하는 에너지재 가격상승으로 인해 발생하는 분배효과를 QUAIDS 모형을 이용하여 분석한다. 에너지재를 수송용 유류, 전기, 가스, 가스 외 난방, 대중교통의 5개 부문으로 나누어 에너지재의 소득탄력성 및 가격탄력성을 추정하였다. 미시모의실험 결과, 탄소세는 역진적인 것으로 나타났으며 세수를 가구전체에게 정액 배분(lump-sum transfer)하는 경우 세부담은 누진적으로 바뀌었다. 그러나 탄소세의 세수를 정액 배분하는 것은 소득 증가에 따른 에너지재 소비를 야기하여 탄소 배출량 감축은 정액 배분이 없는 경우 대비 41.29% 떨어지는 것으로 분석되었다. 또한 세수를 저소득층에게 집중적으로 재분배할수록 세부담은 더 누진적으로 나타나지만 탄소배출량 절감효과는 더욱 감소하였다. 이러한 결과는 탄소세의 세수를 가계에 환원하는 정책 설계를 탄소세의 도입과 함께 고려할 경우 탄소 배출량 감축목표 수준에 따른 탄소세율이 세수 환원이 없는 경우보다 더 높은 수준에서 이루어져야 함을 시사한다.

키워드
탄소세
분배효과
재정패널
기본소득
세수환원
QUAIDS
References
1
국회예산정책처(2021). "탄소세 논의 동향." 나보포커스 : 제34호
2
권오상, 허등용(2011). "탄소세부과의 소득분배효과." 재정학연구 4(1) : 153-179.
3
김동석(2006). "소비구조 장기전망: 인구구조 변화의 영향을 중심으로." 한국개발연구 28(2) : 1-49.
4
김하나(2015). "탄소가격정책의 분배적 함의: 가계동향조사자료와 환경산업연관분석(EEIO)을 이용해." 환경정책연구 14(2) : 101-131. 10.17330/joep.14.2.201506.101
5
김형건(2018) "수송용 유류세의 소득재분배 효과: 운행거리 소비분위별 가격탄력성 추정을 중심으로." 에너지경제연구 17(1): 347-374.
6
이동규(2020) "차종별 유종별 차량 연료 수요탄력성 조세정책상의 시사점." 재정패널 학술대회. 세종. 9월 : 259-278.
7
이동규·김승래(2016). 우리나라 에너지세의 분배효과 연구. 세종: 한국조세재정연구원.
8
이동규· 박명덕· 조성진· 정연제· 전호철· 이창훈(2018). 발전용 에너지 제세부담금 체계 합리적 조정방안 연구. 세종: 한국조세재정연구원.
9
정재현·성명재·이동규(2019). 환경에너지세제 발전방향 연구: 발전 및 난방부문 세제 개편을 중심으로. 세종: 한국조세재정연구원.
10
조용찬·김원년·제상영(2021). "QUAIDS 모형을 이용한 휘발유와 경유의 탄력성 추정." Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society 23(3) : 1143-1152. 10.37727/jkdas.2021.23.3.1143
11
한상용·이재민·김태승(2012) "가상패널자료를 이용한 승용차 통행수요 탄력성 추정 연구." 대한교통학회지 30(2) : 7-20. 10.7470/jkst.2012.30.2.007
12
한민석·전재완·제상영(2019) "휘발유 및 경유의 수요탄력성 추정에 관한 연구: 수요체계적 접근." Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society 21(5) : 2453-2464. 10.37727/jkdas.2019.21.5.2453
13
환경부(2021). "탄소중립 세계 14번째 법제화…탄소중립기본법 국회 통과." 9월 1일.
14
Banks, J., Blundell, R. and Lewbel, A. 1996. "Tax reform and welfare measurement: do we need demand system estimation?" The Economic Journal 106 : 1227-1241. 10.2307/2235517
15
Banks, J., Blundell, R. and Lewbel, A. 1997. "Quadratic engel curves and consumer demand." Review of Economics and Statistics 79(4) : 527-539. 10.1162/003465397557015
16
Brännlund, R. and Nordström, J. 2004. "Carbon tax simulations using a household demand model." European Economic Review 48(1) : 211-233. 10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00263-5
17
Caspersen, E. and Metcalf, G.E. 1994. "Is a value added tax regressive? Annual versus lifetime incidence measures." National Tax Journal 47 : 731-746. 10.1086/NTJ41789105
18
Corsatea, T.D., Linder, S., Arto, I., Roman, M.V., Rueda-Cantuche, J.M., Velazquez, A.A., Amores A.F., Neuwahl F. 2019. World Input-Output Databse Environmental Accounts. Update 2000-2016. Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union.
19
Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. 1980. "An almost ideal demand system." The American Economic Review 70(3) : 312-326.
20
Flues, F. and Thomas, A. 2015. "The distributional effects of energy taxes." OECD Taxation Working Papers 23.
21
Friedman, J. and Levinsohn, J. 2002. "The distributional impacts of indonesia's financial crisis on household welfare: A "Rapid Response" methodology." The World Bank Economic Review 16(3) : 397-423. 10.1093/wber/lhf001
22
Gao, Jinghong, et al., 2018a. "Greenhouse gas emissions reduction in different economic sectors: mitigation measures, health co-benefits, knowledge gaps and policy implications." Environmental Pollution 240 : 683-698. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.01129775945
23
Gao Jinghong, et al. 2018b. "Public health co-benefits of greenhouse gas emissions reduction: A systematic review." Science of the Total Environment 627 : 388-402. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.19329426161
24
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Goveernment. 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.
25
International Monetary Fund. 2020. World Economic Outlook: A Long and Difficult Ascent. Washington, DC
26
Moz-Christofoletti, M.A. and Pereda, P.C. 2021. "Winners and losers: the distributional impacts of a carbon tax in Brazil." Ecological Economics 183. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106945
27
Nikodinoska, D. and Schröder, C. 2016. "On the emissions-inequality and emissions- welfare trade-offs in energy taxation: Evidence on the german car fuels tax." Resource and Energy Economics 44 : 206-233. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.03.001
28
Okonkwo, J.U. 2021. "Welfare effects of carbon taxation on South African households." Energy Economics 96. 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104903
29
Poi, B.P. 2012, "Easy demand-system estimation with quaids." The Stata Journal 12(3) : 433-446. 10.1177/1536867X1201200306
30
Ravallion, M. 1992. Poverty Comparisons: A Guide to Concepts and Methods. The World Bank Group
31
Renner, S., Lay, J. and Greve, H. 2018. "Household welfare and CO2 emission impacts of energy and carbon taxes in Mexico." Energy Economics 72 : 222-235. 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.04.009
32
Renner, S., Lay, J. and Schleicher, M. 2019. "The effects of energy price changes: heterogeneous welfare impacts and energy poverty in Indonesia." Environment and Development Economics 224 : 180-200. 10.1017/S1355770X18000402
33
Spadaro, A. 2007. Microsimulation as a tool for the evaluation of public policies methods and applications. Chapter 1. Microsimulation as a tool for the evaluation of public policies. Madrid : Fundación BBVA
34
Tiezzi, S. 2005. "The welfare effects and the distributive impact of carbon taxation on Italian households." Energy Policy 33(12) : 1597-1612. 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.016
35
World Bank Group. 2019. Using Carbon Revenues. Technical Note 16.
Information
  • Publisher :Korea Energy Economic Institute·Korea Resource Economics Association
  • Publisher(Ko) :에너지경제연구원·한국자원경제학회
  • Journal Title :Korean Energy Economic Review
  • Journal Title(Ko) :에너지경제연구
  • Volume : 21
  • No :2
  • Pages :33-74
  • Received Date : 2022-01-19
  • Revised Date : 2022-04-07
  • Accepted Date : 2022-04-11
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.22794/keer.2022.21.2.002
Journal Informaiton Korean Energy Economic Review Korean Energy Economic Review
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close