碳定价的准实验证据

IF 8.7 1区 经济学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Kasper Vrolijk, Misato Sato
{"title":"碳定价的准实验证据","authors":"Kasper Vrolijk, Misato Sato","doi":"10.1093/wbro/lkad001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A growing literature suggests that carbon emissions are most efficiently reduced by carbon pricing. The evidence base on the effectiveness of market-based mechanisms, however, faces three key limitations: studies often (a) predict, rather than evaluate effects, (b) show large difference in findings, and (c) cannot always infer causal relations. Quasi-experimental studies can address these challenges by using variation in policies over time, space, or entities. This paper systematically reviews this new literature, outlines the benefits and caveats of quasi-experimental methodologies, and verifies the reliability and value of quasi-experimental estimates. The overall evidence base documents a causal effect between carbon pricing and emission reductions, with ambiguous effects on economic outcomes, and there are important gaps and inconsistencies. This review underscores that estimates should be interpreted with care because of: (a) inappropriate choice of method, (b) incorrect implementation of empirical analysis (e.g., violate identifying assumptions), and (c) data limitations. More cross-learning across studies and use of novel empirical strategies is needed to improve the empirical evidence base going forward.","PeriodicalId":47647,"journal":{"name":"World Bank Research Observer","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quasi-Experimental Evidence on Carbon Pricing\",\"authors\":\"Kasper Vrolijk, Misato Sato\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/wbro/lkad001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A growing literature suggests that carbon emissions are most efficiently reduced by carbon pricing. The evidence base on the effectiveness of market-based mechanisms, however, faces three key limitations: studies often (a) predict, rather than evaluate effects, (b) show large difference in findings, and (c) cannot always infer causal relations. Quasi-experimental studies can address these challenges by using variation in policies over time, space, or entities. This paper systematically reviews this new literature, outlines the benefits and caveats of quasi-experimental methodologies, and verifies the reliability and value of quasi-experimental estimates. The overall evidence base documents a causal effect between carbon pricing and emission reductions, with ambiguous effects on economic outcomes, and there are important gaps and inconsistencies. This review underscores that estimates should be interpreted with care because of: (a) inappropriate choice of method, (b) incorrect implementation of empirical analysis (e.g., violate identifying assumptions), and (c) data limitations. More cross-learning across studies and use of novel empirical strategies is needed to improve the empirical evidence base going forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Bank Research Observer\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Bank Research Observer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkad001\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Bank Research Observer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkad001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的文献表明,碳定价最有效地减少了碳排放。然而,基于市场机制有效性的证据面临三个关键限制:研究往往(a)预测而不是评估效果,(b)显示结果的巨大差异,以及(c)不能总是推断因果关系。准实验研究可以通过使用政策随时间、空间或实体的变化来解决这些挑战。本文系统地回顾了这些新文献,概述了准实验方法的优点和注意事项,并验证了准实验估计的可靠性和价值。总体证据基础表明,碳定价与减排之间存在因果关系,但对经济结果的影响不明确,存在重大差距和不一致之处。本综述强调,由于:(a)不适当的方法选择,(b)不正确的经验分析实施(例如,违反识别假设),以及(c)数据限制,应该谨慎解释估计。需要更多的跨研究交叉学习和使用新的实证策略来改进未来的实证证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quasi-Experimental Evidence on Carbon Pricing
Abstract A growing literature suggests that carbon emissions are most efficiently reduced by carbon pricing. The evidence base on the effectiveness of market-based mechanisms, however, faces three key limitations: studies often (a) predict, rather than evaluate effects, (b) show large difference in findings, and (c) cannot always infer causal relations. Quasi-experimental studies can address these challenges by using variation in policies over time, space, or entities. This paper systematically reviews this new literature, outlines the benefits and caveats of quasi-experimental methodologies, and verifies the reliability and value of quasi-experimental estimates. The overall evidence base documents a causal effect between carbon pricing and emission reductions, with ambiguous effects on economic outcomes, and there are important gaps and inconsistencies. This review underscores that estimates should be interpreted with care because of: (a) inappropriate choice of method, (b) incorrect implementation of empirical analysis (e.g., violate identifying assumptions), and (c) data limitations. More cross-learning across studies and use of novel empirical strategies is needed to improve the empirical evidence base going forward.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
1.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The World Bank Journals, including the Research Observer, boast the largest circulation among economics titles. The Research Observer is distributed freely to over 9,100 subscribers in non-OECD countries. Geared towards informing nonspecialist readers about research within and outside the Bank, it covers areas of economics relevant for development policy. Intended for policymakers, project officers, journalists, and educators, its surveys and overviews require only minimal background in economic analysis. Articles are not sent to referees but are assessed and approved by the Editorial Board, including distinguished economists from outside the Bank. The Observer has around 1,500 subscribers in OECD countries and nearly 10,000 subscribers in developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信