财政政策与环境退化:碳税和排放交易体系的异质效应

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Dang Thi Bach Van , Gia Luat Diep , Kim Quyen Nguyen , Hoang Phong Le
{"title":"财政政策与环境退化:碳税和排放交易体系的异质效应","authors":"Dang Thi Bach Van ,&nbsp;Gia Luat Diep ,&nbsp;Kim Quyen Nguyen ,&nbsp;Hoang Phong Le","doi":"10.1016/j.joitmc.2026.100796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study compares the effectiveness of two key carbon pricing instruments, carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETS), in reducing environmental degradation across countries. The analysis uses a panel dataset covering 109 countries over the period 2010–2023, drawing on data from the World Bank, Our World in Data, and the Global Footprint Network. Environmental outcomes are measured using three indicators including ecological footprint, CO₂ emissions, and total greenhouse gas emissions. A two-way fixed effects model (TWFE) controls for unobserved country heterogeneity and common time shocks. An event-study approach captures dynamic treatment effects and anticipation behaviors. Results reveal significant heterogeneity in instrument effectiveness. Carbon taxes consistently deliver statistically significant and economically meaningful reductions in ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions, with effects emerging gradually and partially anticipated pre-implementation. By contrast, ETS has more limited and targeted effects: it mainly reduces total greenhouse gas emissions, while its effects on broader ecological pressure are weak or statistically insignificant. Both instruments' efficacy is heavily influenced by institutional quality where higher government effectiveness and democratic accountability amplify environmental benefits. No strong evidence supports additional gains from combining carbon tax and ETS beyond carbon tax. By highlighting the uneven performance of ETS relative to the broader effectiveness of carbon taxes, the study provides new insights for the design of green fiscal policy in both developed and emerging economies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16678,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity","volume":"12 2","pages":"Article 100796"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fiscal policy and environmental degradation: Heterogeneous effects of carbon taxes and emissions trading systems\",\"authors\":\"Dang Thi Bach Van ,&nbsp;Gia Luat Diep ,&nbsp;Kim Quyen Nguyen ,&nbsp;Hoang Phong Le\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joitmc.2026.100796\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study compares the effectiveness of two key carbon pricing instruments, carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETS), in reducing environmental degradation across countries. The analysis uses a panel dataset covering 109 countries over the period 2010–2023, drawing on data from the World Bank, Our World in Data, and the Global Footprint Network. Environmental outcomes are measured using three indicators including ecological footprint, CO₂ emissions, and total greenhouse gas emissions. A two-way fixed effects model (TWFE) controls for unobserved country heterogeneity and common time shocks. An event-study approach captures dynamic treatment effects and anticipation behaviors. Results reveal significant heterogeneity in instrument effectiveness. Carbon taxes consistently deliver statistically significant and economically meaningful reductions in ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions, with effects emerging gradually and partially anticipated pre-implementation. By contrast, ETS has more limited and targeted effects: it mainly reduces total greenhouse gas emissions, while its effects on broader ecological pressure are weak or statistically insignificant. Both instruments' efficacy is heavily influenced by institutional quality where higher government effectiveness and democratic accountability amplify environmental benefits. No strong evidence supports additional gains from combining carbon tax and ETS beyond carbon tax. By highlighting the uneven performance of ETS relative to the broader effectiveness of carbon taxes, the study provides new insights for the design of green fiscal policy in both developed and emerging economies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100796\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S219985312600082X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/5/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S219985312600082X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究比较了两种关键的碳定价工具——碳税和排放交易体系(ETS)——在减少各国环境退化方面的有效性。该分析使用了涵盖2010-2023年期间109个国家的面板数据集,数据来自世界银行、我们的数据世界和全球足迹网络。环境结果通过生态足迹、二氧化碳排放量、温室气体排放总量等3个指标来衡量。双向固定效应模型(TWFE)控制未观察到的国家异质性和共同时间冲击。事件研究方法捕获动态治疗效果和预期行为。结果显示仪器有效性存在显著异质性。碳税在减少生态足迹和二氧化碳排放方面具有显著的统计意义和经济意义,其效果逐渐显现,并在实施前得到部分预期。相比之下,碳排放交易体系的效果更有限、更有针对性:它主要减少温室气体排放总量,而对更广泛的生态压力的影响较弱或统计上不显著。这两种工具的效力都受到制度质量的严重影响,较高的政府效率和民主问责制会放大环境效益。除了碳税之外,没有强有力的证据支持将碳税和碳排放交易体系结合起来会带来额外的收益。通过突出碳排放交易体系相对于碳税更广泛的有效性的不平衡表现,该研究为发达经济体和新兴经济体的绿色财政政策设计提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fiscal policy and environmental degradation: Heterogeneous effects of carbon taxes and emissions trading systems
This study compares the effectiveness of two key carbon pricing instruments, carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETS), in reducing environmental degradation across countries. The analysis uses a panel dataset covering 109 countries over the period 2010–2023, drawing on data from the World Bank, Our World in Data, and the Global Footprint Network. Environmental outcomes are measured using three indicators including ecological footprint, CO₂ emissions, and total greenhouse gas emissions. A two-way fixed effects model (TWFE) controls for unobserved country heterogeneity and common time shocks. An event-study approach captures dynamic treatment effects and anticipation behaviors. Results reveal significant heterogeneity in instrument effectiveness. Carbon taxes consistently deliver statistically significant and economically meaningful reductions in ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions, with effects emerging gradually and partially anticipated pre-implementation. By contrast, ETS has more limited and targeted effects: it mainly reduces total greenhouse gas emissions, while its effects on broader ecological pressure are weak or statistically insignificant. Both instruments' efficacy is heavily influenced by institutional quality where higher government effectiveness and democratic accountability amplify environmental benefits. No strong evidence supports additional gains from combining carbon tax and ETS beyond carbon tax. By highlighting the uneven performance of ETS relative to the broader effectiveness of carbon taxes, the study provides new insights for the design of green fiscal policy in both developed and emerging economies.
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
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
196
审稿时长
1 day
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书