Науковий вісник НГУ

Efficiency of environmental taxation in European countries: comparative analysis

• 
• 

User Rating:  / 1

PoorBest 

Details

Category: Contens №5 2020

Last Updated on 02 November 2020

Published on 30 October 2020

Hits: 2983

Authors:

V. Koziuk, orcid.org/0000-0002-5715-2983, Ternopil National Economic University, Ternopil, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Yu. Hayda, orcid.org/0000-0001-6019-9654. Ternopil National Economic University, Ternopil, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

O. Dluhopolskyi, orcid.org/0000-0002-2040-8762, Ternopil National Economic University, Ternopil, Ukraine, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

V. Martynyuk, orcid.org/0000-0003-0656-8281, University of Economics and Innovation (WSEI), Lublin, Poland

Yu. Klapkiv, orcid.org/0000-0002-9771-5357, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

повний текст / full article

Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu. 2020, (5): 115-121

https://doi.org/10.33271/nvngu/2020-5/115

Abstract:

Purpose. To make an economic assessment of the effectiveness of the environmental tax system in European countries. The hypothetical question is how and when changes in (increasing or decreasing) the rates of different types of environmental taxes affect the pollution of the environment.

Methodology. To evaluate economically the effectiveness of the environmental taxation system, the article uses the method of cross-correlation between indicators in European countries.

Findings. The effectiveness of environmental taxes depends on the tax base, tax rates, the evolution of taxes, and tax policy. The design of environmental taxes and their implementation differs across countries within the EU. According to the research conducted, two groups of countries can be distinguished in the EU taking into account polar trends of environmental taxation development. The first group of the countries shows the downward trend in environmental taxes – the annual average of the total environmental tax revenue in these countries today is below its base value in 2008 (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Sweden, Iceland, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). The second group of the countries shows a clear upward trend in environmental taxes ranging (Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, France, Poland).

Originality. Depending on the time lag symbol and the direction of cross-correlation, there are four groups of countries within the environmental policy. The first cluster includes countries in which environmental policy instruments such as air pollution fees and resource use charges are quite effective (Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia). The second cluster includes countries in which the environmental tax increase was accompanied by an increase in CO₂ emissions (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary). In the third group of countries deterioration of the environmental situation is not a motivator for increasing the environmental taxation burden (Lithuania, Greece). The fourth cluster demonstrates that deterioration of the environmental situation in the country motivates to increase the environmental taxation burden (Bulgaria, Spain).

Practical value. The data obtained indirectly indicate that the dependencies between the time series we investigated are likely to be nonlinear in nature, which the found cross-correlation coefficients cannot detect. The research demonstrates the high probability of the existence of diametrically opposite interdependencies between the studied variables for different groups of countries.

References.

1. European Environment Agency (2010). Environmental Taxes: Recent Developments in Tools for Integration. Retrieved from http://edz.bib.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-bn.

2. Pigou, A. C. (2013). The Economics of Welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37562-9.

3. Merko, F., Dursun, S., & Merko, F. (2018). Environmental Taxation – the Efects on Environmental Effectiveness and Economic Efficiency. International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Science, 8(4), 739-746. https://doi.org/10.31407/ijees84.

4. He, P., Zhang, Y., Yuan, Y., Qiao, Y., Xin, L., & Zou, X. (2019). The Relationship between Environmental Taxation, Environmental Performance and Economic Growth: Comparative Study of Sweden and China 1985–2016. Ekoloji, 28(107), 401-410.

5. Kuralbayeva, K. (2019). Environmental Taxation, Employment and Public Spending in Developing Countries. Environmental & Resource Economics, 72(4), 877-912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0230-3.

6. Vandyck, T., & van Regemorter, D. (2014). Distributional and regional economic impact of energy taxes in Belgium. Energy Policy, 72, 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.004.

7. Wiesmeth, H., & Marquardt, J. (2013). Environmental Economics. Theory and Policy Equilibrium. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 9783642270420.

8. Costantini, V., & Mazzanti, M. (2012). On the Green and Innovative Side of Trade Competitiveness? The Impact of Environmental Policies and Innovation on EU Exports. Elsevier Research Policy, 41, 132-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.004.

9. Anita, S., Capasso, V., Kunze, H., & la Torre, D. (2016). Optimizing Environmental Taxation on Physical Capital for a Spatially Structured Economic Growth Model Including Pollution Diffusion. Vietnam Journal of Mathematics, 45, 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10013-016-0215-x.

10. Houdek, P., & Koblovsky, P. (2015). Where is My Money? New Findings in Fiscal Psychology. Society, 52, 155-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9873-7.

11. Lutsyshyn, Z., Klapkiv, Y., Kucher, T., & Svirskyi, V. (2019). Development of innovative instruments in the financial market of Ukraine. Revista Espacios, 40(28), 22-37.

12. Alvarez, M. (2019). Distributional effects of environmental taxation: an approximation with a meta-regression analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 62(C), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2018.10.003.

13. Freire-González, J. (2018). Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: a critical review. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(1), 194-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2017.11.002.

14. Bento, A., & Jacobsen, M. (2007). Ricardian rents, environmental policy and the “double-dividend” hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.03.006.

15. Fullerton, D., Leicester, A., & Smith, S. (2010). Environmental Taxes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14197.

16. Heine, D., Norregaard, J., & Parry, W.H. (2012). Environmental Tax Reform: Principles from Theory and Practice to Date. IMF Working Papers, 180. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781475505283.001.

17. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) (2013). Final Report. Evaluation of Environmental Tax Reforms: International Experiences. Retrieved from http://www.efv.admin.ch/e/downloads.

18. European Commission (2013). Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2013 of European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs.

19. Koziuk, V., Shymanska, O., & Voznyi, K. (2019). Environmental taxation trends in Europe. World of Finance, 4(61), 8-22.

20. EUROSTAT (2019). Environmental tax statistics. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.

21. Environmental tax revenues (2020). Retrieved from https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui.

22. Environmental taxes make way to protect the environment (2018). Retrieved from https://www.iberdrola.com/environment/green-and-environmental-taxes.

• < Prev
• Next >