@article{KalkuhlFernandezMilanSchwerhoffetal.2018,
  author    = {Kalkuhl, Matthias and Fernandez Milan, Blanca and Schwerhoff, Gregor and Jakob, Michael and Hahnen, Maren and Creutzig, Felix},
  title     = {Can land taxes foster sustainable development?},
  series = {Land use policy : the international journal covering all aspects of land use},
  volume    = {78},
  journal   = {Land use policy : the international journal covering all aspects of land use},
  publisher = {Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0264-8377},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.008},
  pages     = {338 -- 352},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Economists argue that land rent taxation is an ideal form of taxation as it causes no deadweight losses. Nevertheless, pure land rent taxation is rarely applied. This paper revisits the case of land taxation for developing countries. We first provide an up-to-date review on land taxation in development countries, including feasibility and implementation challenges. We then simulate land tax reforms for Rwanda, Peru, Nicaragua and Indonesia, based on household surveys. We find that (i) land taxes provide a substantial untapped potential for tax revenues at minimal deadweight losses; that (ii) linear land value taxes tend to put a high relative burden on poor households as land ownership is pervasive; (iii) non-linear tax schemes could avoid adverse effects on the poor; and that (iv) with technological advances, administrative costs of land taxes have reduced substantially and are outweighed by tax revenues and co-benefits of formalized land tenure. Enforcement and compliance remain, however, a key challenge.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MielkeVermassenEllenbecketal.2016,
  author    = {Mielke, Jahel and Vermassen, Hannah and Ellenbeck, Saskia and Milan, Blanca Fernandez and Jaeger, Carlo},
  title     = {Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science-A critical view},
  series = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2214-6296},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.001},
  pages     = {71 -- 81},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}