@article{DorbandJakobKalkuhletal.2019,
  author    = {Dorband, Ira Irina and Jakob, Michael and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Steckel, Jan Christoph},
  title     = {Poverty and distributional effects of carbon pricing in low- and middle-income countries - A global comparative analysis},
  series = {World development},
  volume    = {115},
  journal   = {World development},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0305-750X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.015},
  pages     = {246 -- 257},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Even though concerns about adverse distributional implications for the poor are one of the most important political challenges for carbon pricing, the existing literature reveals ambiguous results. For this reason, we assess the expected incidence of moderate carbon price increases for different income groups in 87 mostly low- and middle-income countries. Building on a consistent dataset and method, we find that for countries with per capita incomes of below USD 15,000 per year (at PPP-adjusted 2011 USD) carbon pricing has, on average, progressive distributional effects. We also develop a novel decomposition technique to show that distributional outcomes are primarily determined by differences among income groups in consumption patterns of energy, rather than of food, goods or services. We argue that an inverse U-shape relationship between energy expenditure shares and income explains why carbon pricing tends to be regressive in countries with relatively higher income. Since these countries are likely to have more financial resources and institutional capacities to deal with distributional issues, our findings suggest that mitigating climate change, raising domestic revenue and reducing economic inequality are not mutually exclusive, even in low- and middle-income countries. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EdenhoferFranksKalkuhl2021,
  author    = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Franks, Max and Kalkuhl, Matthias},
  title     = {Pigou in the 21st century},
  series = {International tax and public finance},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {International tax and public finance},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0927-5940},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10797-020-09653-y},
  pages     = {1090 -- 1121},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The year 2020 marks the centennial of the publication of Arthur Cecil Pigou's magnum opus The Economics of Welfare. Pigou's pricing principles have had an enduring influence on the academic debate, with a widespread consensus having emerged among economists that Pigouvian taxes or subsidies are theoretically desirable, but politically infeasible. In this article, we revisit Pigou's contribution and argue that this consensus is somewhat spurious, particularly in two ways: (1) Economists are too quick to ignore the theoretical problems and subtleties that Pigouvian pricing still faces; (2) The wholesale skepticism concerning the political viability of Pigouvian pricing is at odds with its recent practical achievements. These two points are made by, first, outlining the theoretical and political challenges that include uncertainty about the social cost of carbon, the unclear relationship between the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness approaches, distributional concerns, fragmented ministerial responsibilities, an unstable tax base, commitment problems, lack of acceptance and trust between government and citizens as well as incomplete international cooperation. Secondly, we discuss the recent political success of Pigouvian pricing, as evidenced by the German government's 2019 climate policy reform and the EU's Green Deal. We conclude by presenting a research agenda for addressing the remaining barriers that need to be overcome to make Pigouvian pricing a common political practice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LilliestamPattBersalli2022,
  author    = {Lilliestam, Johan and Patt, Anthony and Bersalli, Germ{\´a}n},
  title     = {On the quality of emission reductions},
  series = {Environmental and Resource Economics},
  volume    = {83},
  journal   = {Environmental and Resource Economics},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0924-6460},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10640-022-00708-8},
  pages     = {733 -- 758},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {To meet the Paris Agreement targets, carbon emissions from the energy system must be eliminated by mid-century, implying vast investment and systemic change challenges ahead. In an article in WIREs Climate Change, we reviewed the empirical evidence for effects of carbon pricing systems on technological change towards full decarbonisation, finding weak or no effects. In response, van den Bergh and Savin (2021) criticised our review in an article in this journal, claiming that it is "unfair", incomplete and flawed in various ways. Here, we respond to this critique by elaborating on the conceptual roots of our argumentation based on the importance of short-term emission reductions and longer-term technological change, and by expanding the review. This verifies our original findings: existing carbon pricing schemes have sometimes reduced emissions, mainly through switching to lower-carbon fossil fuels and efficiency increases, and have triggered weak innovation increases. There is no evidence that carbon pricing systems have triggered zero-carbon investments, and scarce but consistent evidence that they have not. Our findings highlight the importance of adapting and improving climate policy assessment metrics beyond short-term emissions by also assessing the quality of emission reductions and the progress of underlying technological change.},
  language  = {en}
}