@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{EdenhoferKalkuhlOckenfels2020, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Ockenfels, Axel}, title = {Das Klimaschutzprogramm der Bundesregierung}, series = {Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik}, volume = {21}, journal = {Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik}, number = {1}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {1465-6493}, doi = {10.1515/pwp-2020-0001}, pages = {4 -- 18}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Das Klimaschutzgesetz hat einen Paradigmenwechsel eingeleitet: den Einstieg in eine CO2-Bepreisung als k{\"u}nftiges Leitinstrument der Klimapolitik. Auf den ersten Blick ist der CO2-Preis unter einer F{\"u}lle von F{\"o}rdermaßnahmen und ordnungsrechtlichen Regelungen versch{\"u}ttet, deren Wirksamkeit und Kosten h{\"o}chst unsicher sind. Der CO2-Preis ist aber so angelegt, dass er langfristig das dominante Instrument einer europ{\"a}isch harmonisierten Klimapolitik werden kann. Der angedeutete Paradigmenwechsel der deutschen Klimapolitik {\"o}ffnet damit die T{\"u}r, die europ{\"a}ische und internationale Kooperation zu st{\"a}rken. Dazu ist es aber notwendig, neben der europ{\"a}ischen auch die globale Klimapolitik neu auszurichten. Auch dort sollten sich die Verhandlungen statt auf nationale Mengenziele auf CO2-Preise konzentrieren. Die erforderliche Kooperation wird m{\"o}glich, wenn die Regierungen Transferzahlungen strategisch und reziprok nutzen. So k{\"o}nnte die Effektivit{\"a}t der Klimapolitik erh{\"o}ht werden und es ließen sich die entstehenden Verteilungskonflikte entsch{\"a}rfen.}, language = {de} } @article{EdenhoferKalkuhlRequateetal.2020, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Requate, Tilman and Steckel, Jan Christoph}, title = {How assets get stranded}, series = {Journal of environmental economics and management}, volume = {100}, journal = {Journal of environmental economics and management}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0095-0696}, doi = {10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102300}, pages = {4}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Internalizing external costs of carbon is a fundamental goal of climate policy. Since the seminal work of Arthur Pigou in 1920, economic theory has analyzed the efficiency gains arising from various instruments that internalize externalities and lead to Pareto-improvements. It is widely recognized in environmental economics that a carbon price would effectively reflect the scarcity of the atmospheric disposal space for carbon depending on the temperature target that is to be achieved. The question of how to organize the transition process, i.e. moving from inefficient to efficient allocations, and implementing the necessary policies, has gained increasing attention in recent years. Arguably, the transition process is tightly interwoven with political processes that include complex interactions between societal stakeholders, such as households and firms, on the one hand, and political decision makers, on the other. Accordingly, understanding political-economy aspects of the transition process, including distributional outcomes, is becoming increasingly relevant. While a growing literature discusses the distributional implications of climate policy on households, it is less well understood how asset owners might be affected by climate policy and how these potential impacts would interact with the transition process. This Special Section focuses on public policy challenges related to this transition problem, with special emphasis on asset owners. A core theme is the special role of stranded assets, i.e. a devaluation of capital stocks or financial assets either by introducing a stringent carbon price or by omitting a pre-announced policy of this kind.}, language = {en} } @article{EdenhoferKalkuhlRoolfs2021, author = {Edenhofer, Ottmar and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Roolfs, Christina}, title = {Carbon pricing and revenue recycling}, series = {CESifo forum}, volume = {22}, journal = {CESifo forum}, number = {5}, publisher = {Ifo}, address = {Munich}, issn = {2190-717X}, pages = {10 -- 14}, year = {2021}, language = {en} } @techreport{KalkuhlAmbergBergmannetal.2022, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kalkuhl, Matthias and Amberg, Maximilian and Bergmann, Tobias and Knopf, Brigitte and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Gaspreisdeckel, Mehrwertsteuersenkung, Energiepauschale}, publisher = {Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH}, address = {Berlin}, pages = {23}, year = {2022}, language = {de} } @article{KalkuhlEdenhofer2016, author = {Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Ramsey meets Th{\"u}nen}, series = {International tax and public finance}, volume = {24}, journal = {International tax and public finance}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {0927-5940}, doi = {10.1007/s10797-016-9403-6}, pages = {350 -- 380}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Land taxes can increase production in the manufacturing sector and enhance land conservation at the same time, which can lead to overall macroeconomic growth. Existing research emphasizes the non-distorting properties of land taxes (when fixed factors are taxed) as well as growth-enhancing impacts (when asset portfolios are shifted to reproducible capital). This paper furthers the neoclassical perspective on land taxes by endogenizing land allocation decisions in a multi-sector growth model. Based on von Th{\"u}nen's observation, agricultural land is created from wilderness through conversion and cultivation, both of which are associated with costs. In the steady state of our general equilibrium model, land taxes not only may reduce land consumption (associated with environmental benefits) but may also affect overall economic output, while leaving wages and interest rates unaffected. When labor productivity is higher in the manufacturing than in the agricultural sector and agricultural and manufactured goods are substitutes (or the economy is open to world trade), land taxes increase aggregate economic output. There is a complex interplay of conservation policy, technological change and land taxes, depending on consumer preferences, sectoral labor productivities and openness-to-trade. Our model introduces a new perspective on land taxes in current policy debates on development, tax reforms as well as forest conservation.}, language = {en} } @techreport{KalkuhlFlachslandKnopfetal.2022, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kalkuhl, Matthias and Flachsland, Christian and Knopf, Brigitte and Amberg, Maximilian and Bergmann, Tobias and Kellner, Maximilian and St{\"u}ber, Sophia and Haywood, Luke and Roolfs, Christina and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Effects of the energy price crisis on households in Germany}, publisher = {Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH}, address = {Berlin}, pages = {35}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @techreport{KalkuhlFlachslandKnopfetal.2022, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kalkuhl, Matthias and Flachsland, Christian and Knopf, Brigitte and Amberg, Maximilian and Bergmann, Tobias and Kellner, Maximilian and St{\"u}ber, Sophia and Haywood, Luke and Roolfs, Christina and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Auswirkungen der Energiepreiskrise auf Haushalte in Deutschland}, publisher = {Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) gGmbH}, address = {Berlin}, pages = {37}, year = {2022}, language = {de} } @article{KalkuhlSteckelEdenhofer2020, author = {Kalkuhl, Matthias and Steckel, Jan Christoph and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {All or nothing}, series = {Journal of environmental economics and management}, volume = {100}, journal = {Journal of environmental economics and management}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {San Diego}, issn = {0095-0696}, doi = {10.1016/j.jeem.2019.01.012}, pages = {21}, year = {2020}, abstract = {This paper develops a new perspective on stranded assets in climate policy using a partial equilibrium model of the energy sector. Political-economy related aspects are considered in the government's objective function. Lobbying power of firms or fiscal considerations by the government lead to time inconsistency: The government will deviate from a previously announced carbon tax which creates stranded assets. Under rational expectations, we show that a time-consistent policy outcome exists with either a zero carbon tax or a prohibitive carbon tax that leads to zero fossil investments - an "all-or-nothing" policy. Although stranded assets are crucial to such a bipolar outcome, they disappear again under time-consistent policy. Which of the two outcomes (all or nothing) prevails depends on the lobbying power of owners of fixed factors (land and fossil resources) but not on fiscal revenue considerations or on the lobbying power of renewable or fossil energy firms.}, language = {en} } @article{SurethKalkuhlEdenhoferetal.2023, author = {Sureth, Michael and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {A welfare economic approach to planetary boundaries}, series = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik}, volume = {243}, journal = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik}, number = {5}, publisher = {De Gruyter Oldenbourg}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0021-4027}, doi = {10.1515/jbnst-2022-0022}, pages = {477 -- 542}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The crises of both the climate and the biosphere are manifestations of the imbalance between human extractive, and polluting activities and the Earth's regenerative capacity. Planetary boundaries define limits for biophysical systems and processes that regulate the stability and life support capacity of the Earth system, and thereby also define a safe operating space for humanity on Earth. Budgets associated to planetary boundaries can be understood as global commons: common pool resources that can be utilized within finite limits. Despite the analytical interpretation of planetary boundaries as global commons, the planetary boundaries framework is missing a thorough integration into economic theory. We aim to bridge the gap between welfare economic theory and planetary boundaries as derived in the natural sciences by presenting a unified theory of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our pragmatic approach aims to overcome shortcomings of the practical applications of CEA and CBA to environmental problems of a planetary scale. To do so, we develop a model framework and explore decision paradigms that give guidance to setting limits on human activities. This conceptual framework is then applied to planetary boundaries. We conclude by using the realized insights to derive a research agenda that builds on the understanding of planetary boundaries as global commons.}, language = {en} }