Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 碳稅與稅收循環政策對脆弱家戶影響之研究
The Impacts of the Carbon Tax and Revenue Recycling Policy on Vulnerable Households作者 許毓庭
Hsu, Yu-Ting貢獻者 蕭代基
Shaw, Dai-Gee
許毓庭
Hsu, Yu-Ting關鍵詞 環境稅制改革
稅收循環
定額移轉
累退性
脆弱家戶
climate change
revenue recycling policy
lump-sum transfer
carbon tax
vulnerable households日期 2024 上傳時間 4-Sep-2024 14:38:02 (UTC+8) 摘要 氣候變遷已成為各國急迫處理的重大議題之一，我國亦無法置身事外，於2022年公布2050淨零排放路徑及策略總說明，隨後為加速減碳行動，將溫管法修正並更名為《氣候變遷因應法》修正內容中除了包含2050淨零目標，亦涵蓋了我國預計於2024年實施的碳費制度相關條文，而我國國發會在2023年公布的公正轉型戰略行動計畫中，則將淨零轉型中可能使民生消費支出增加而使中低收入戶受到負面衝擊的議題列入因應目標之一。 過往研究多關注實施碳定價政策後的總體效果，如減排效果、GDP、就業量等議題，較少研究關注在碳定價實施下，各類型家戶所會遭受到支出面、所得面的衝擊和影響，故本研究利用E3ME總體計量模型預測課徵碳稅後對各類商品、家戶所得的變動，以分析不同稅額的碳稅實施後，如何影響不同家戶的支出情形和負擔。 接著本研究使用我國家庭收支調查原始資料，先將家戶依可支配所得進行分組，並將碳稅稅收進行不同比例的運用，以了解其改善所得分配之效果。進而利用家庭收支調查中可獲取的家戶特徵來進行分析，以了解具有何種特徵的家庭可能在碳稅實施下面臨較平均而言為高的負面衝擊，以辨別出淨零轉型下的脆弱群體。 本研究發現，低所得家庭在碳稅課徵下面臨較高所得家庭更大的負面衝擊，如將碳稅收入百分之百進行定額移轉，各所得組皆可獲得正的淨所得並可有效改善中低所得組的衝擊；如只使用百分之五十的碳稅收入返還於民，各所得組皆為負的淨所得，且仍為低所得者有較高的負擔，故本文進而探討兩種僅針對中低所得家戶的返還方式，發現只針對中低所得家戶進行發還，在情境一和情境二分別只需運用17.91%和18.33%的碳稅收入，即可抵銷中低所得家戶的負面衝擊；如使用返還金額加倍（定額移轉予全民的金額乘以二，並只返還給中低所得家戶）的作法，在情境一和二分別只需運用27.38%和27.39%的碳稅收入，即可使中低所得家戶有正的淨所得增額。 最後，本研究在脆弱家戶特徵的分析上，分別以全體家戶和僅以所得級距一之家戶特徵進行分析，如以全體家戶進行分析，高齡家庭、經濟戶長65歲以上之家庭、教育程度國中之經濟戶長、單人家庭、夫婦二人家庭、祖孫二代家庭有較高的支出負擔比例，其中祖孫二代家庭、所得級距一的家戶支出金額增加較少且該增額卻占其所得比例高於全體平均，屬於本文所定義之脆弱家戶；如僅以所得級距一的家戶進行分析，在級距一的家戶中，不論使用何種特徵分類，其負擔比例都會略高於全體算出來的負擔比例，故在級距一中我們辨別出負擔比例高於級距一全體平均負擔比例的特徵，有：高齡家庭、經濟戶長65歲以上之家庭、經濟戶長教育程度大學以上、經濟戶長教育程度高中職及專科、核心家庭以及夫婦二人家庭。
Previous research has mostly focused on the overall effects of implementing carbon pricing policies, such as emission reduction, GDP, and employment. However, there has been less focus on the impact on expenditures and incomes of different household types under carbon pricing. Therefore, this study uses the E3ME macro-econometric model to predict changes in the costs of various goods and household incomes after the imposition of a carbon tax. The analysis aims to understand how different carbon tax rates affect household spending and financial burdens. We use the Taiwan Family Income and Expenditure Survey to group households based on disposable income and applies carbon tax revenues in various proportions to assess the effect on income distribution. By analyzing household characteristics available in the survey, this essay identifies which types of households might face higher-than-average negative impacts under carbon tax implementation, thereby identifying vulnerable households in the net-zero transition. This essay finds that low-income households face greater negative impacts compared to higher-income households under carbon taxation. If 100% of the carbon tax revenue is returned equally, all income groups can achieve a net gain, effectively mitigating the impact on low-income groups. However, if only 50% of the carbon tax revenue is returned, all income groups experience a net loss, with low-income households bearing a higher burden. Therefore, we further explored two redistribution methods targeting only middle and low-income households. It finds that targeting only middle and low-income households would require using just 17.91% and 18.33% of the carbon tax revenue in scenarios one and two, respectively, to offset the negative impacts on these households. Additionally, doubling the amount of redistribution would require using only 27.38% and 27.39% of the carbon tax revenue in scenarios one and two, respectively, to achieve a net gain for middle and low-income households. Finally, we analyze the characteristics of vulnerable households by examining all households and those in the lowest income bracket. For all households, those with elderly members, heads of households over 65, heads of households with an education level below elementary school, one-person family, couple family, grandfamily, and three-generation family bear higher expenditure burdens. When analyzing only the lowest income bracket, households with elderly members, heads of households over 65, heads of households with higher education levels (university or above), and core families bear higher burdens than the average for the entire income bracket.參考文獻 王寳貫、蕭代基（2023）。淨零之路:臺灣的雙贏策略。中央研究院環境變遷研究中心。 行政院主計總處（2023）。111年家庭收支調查(AA170047)【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。 吳聰敏（2005）。台灣農村地區之消費者物價指數: 1902–1941。經濟論文叢刊，33(4)，321-355。 沈柏彥（2018）。臺北市高齡家庭消費負擔分析。臺北市政府主計處，統計分析應用報告。 徐士勳（2003）。「綠色財政改革的可行性分析與規劃─子計畫三: 我國綠色租稅改革的社經影響評估 (II)」。國立臺灣大學農業經濟學系暨研究所。 楊子菡、蘇漢邦（2002）。綠色租稅改革的租稅福利成本與結構效果。農業與經濟，(29)，29-55。 楊家瑞（2016）。財稅資料低所得報稅戶背景分析。政府機關資訊通報，(343)，15-20。 經濟部能源署（2023）。112年能源統計手冊。臺北市：經濟部能源署。 蕭代基、洪志銘（2010）。綠色稅制與產業轉型。永續產業發展，22-30。 蕭代基、傅俞瑄、林師模、黃琝琇（2020），減碳政策在台灣：補貼或課稅？，綠色經濟期刊，6，A1-23。 蕭代基、黃琝琇、林師模、傅俞瑄（2022），國際碳邊境調整機制對台灣減碳與經濟的影響，臺灣能源期刊，9(1)，1-24。 Argente, D., & Lee, M. (2021). Cost of living inequality during the great recession. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(2), 913-952. Arrow, K. J. (1958). The measurement of price changes. The relationship of prices to economic stability and growth, 77-87. Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M., Baklanov, A., Thomson, M., Wagner, F., Geden, O., ... & Hall, J. W. (2021). Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy. Nature, 596(7872), 377-383. Bor, Y. J., & Huang, Y. (2010). Energy taxation and the double dividend effect in Taiwan's energy conservation policy—an empirical study using a computable general equilibrium model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2086-2100. Bovenberg, A. L., & de Mooij, R. A. (1994). Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 1085–1089. Boyce, J. K. (2018). Carbon pricing: effectiveness and equity. Ecological Economics, 150, 52-61. Boyce, J. K., & Riddle, M. (2007). Cap and dividend: how to curb global warming while protecting the incomes of American families. PERI Working Papers, 108. Bureau, D., Henriet, F., & Schubert, K. (2019). A proposal for the climate: Taxing carbon not people. Notes du conseil danalyse economique, 50(2), 1-12. Bussolo, M., Krolage, C., Makovec, M., Peichl, A., Stockli, M., Torre, I., & Wittneben, C. (2018). Vertical and horizontal redistribution: The cases of Western and Eastern Europe. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8657). Carattini, S., Carvalho, M., & Fankhauser, S. (2018). Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(5), e531. De Bruin, K. C., Monaghan, E., & Yakut, A. M. (2019). The economic and distributional impacts of an increased carbon tax with different revenue recycling schemes (No. 95). Research Series. Dellaccio, O., Dicks, J., McGovern, M., & Stenning, J. (2022). The distributional effects of pathways to net-zero and the implications for fuel and transport poverty. Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions. Dobbins, A., & Fahl, U. (2023). Effects of Carbon Tax Redistribution Schemes on Energy Welfare of Households in Germany. In Vulnerable Households in the Energy Transition: Energy Poverty, Demographics and Policies (pp. 139-171). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Dolls, M., Doorley, K., Paulus, A., Schneider, H., & Sommer, E. (2018). Demographic Change and the European Income Distribution. Working Paper, EUROMOD. Eisner, A., Kulmer, V., & Kortschak, D. (2021). Distributional effects of carbon pricing when considering household heterogeneity: An EASI application for Austria. Energy Policy, 156, 112478. Feng, C. C., Chang, K. F., Lin, J. X., & Lin, S. M. (2020). The distributional effect of a carbon tax on income in Taiwan. Sustainability, 12(4), 1530. Fremstad, A., & Paul, M. (2017). A distributional analysis of a carbon tax and dividend in the United States. Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper, 434. Garner, T. I., Johnson, D. S., & Kokoski, M. F. (1996). An experimental consumer price index for the poor. Monthly Lab. Rev., 119, 32. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend: a reader's guide. International tax and public finance, 2, 157-183. Grainger, C. A., & Kolstad, C. D. (2010). Who pays a price on carbon?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 359-376. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Vivid Economics (2020) Carbon pricing options for Taiwan. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, and Vivid Economics Hagemann, R. P. (1982). The variability of inflation rates across household types. journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 14(4), 494-510. Hamilton, K., & Cameron, G. (1994). Simulating the distributional effects of a Canadian carbon tax. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 385-399. Hassett, K. A., Mathur, A., & Metcalf, G. E. (2009). The incidence of a US carbon tax: A lifetime and regional analysis. The Energy Journal, 30(2), 155-178. Hobijn, B., & Lagakos, D. (2005). Inflation inequality in the United States. review of income and Wealth, 51(4), 581-606. IPCC (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp. 1-34, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001 Jaravel, X. (2021). Inflation inequality: Measurement, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Economics, 13(1), 599-629. Kiss-Dobronyi, B., Fazekas, D., Pollitt, H. (2021) ‘Macroeconomic assessment of possible Green Recovery scenarios in Visegrad countries’. Society and Economy, Vol. 43, Issue 3. Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Combet, E., Edenhofer, O., Hepburn, C., Rafaty, R., & Stern, N. (2018). Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nature Climate Change, 8(8), 669-677. Lee, M., & Sanger, T. (2008). Is BC's Carbon Tax Fair?: An Impact Analysis for Different Income Levels. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office. Lee, S., Chewpreecha U., Pollitt H. and Kojima S. (2018) ‘An economic assessment of carbon tax reform to meet Japan’s NDC target under different nuclear assumptions using the E3ME model’, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 411-429. Lee, S., Pollitt, H., & Park, P. S. (2015). Low-carbon sustainable future in East Asia. Roudtledge. Lehmann, P., Sijm, J., Gawel, E., Strunz, S., Chewpreecha, U., Mercure, J-F. and Pollitt, H (2018) ‘Addressing multiple externalities from electricity generation: a case for EU renewable energy policy beyond 2020?’, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies’, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 255–283. Lieu, P. T., Chang, C., & Chang, J. R. (2004). inflation rate Variations across household: empirical evidence from taiwan. Available at SSRN 490457. Malerba, D., Gaentzsch, A., & Ward, H. (2021). Mitigating poverty: The patterns of multiple carbon tax and recycling regimes for Peru. Energy Policy, 149, 111961. McLennan, M. (2023). The global risks report 2023 18th edition. Cologny, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Metcalf, G. E. (2017). A distributional analysis of green tax reforms. In Distributional Effects of Environmental and Energy Policy (pp. 65-91). Routledge. Michael, R. T. (1975). Variation Across Household in the Rate of Inflation (No. w0074). National Bureau of Economic Research. Mori, A., Ekins, P., Speck, S., Lee, S. C., & Ueta, K. (Eds.). (2013). The green fiscal mechanism and reform for low carbon development: East Asia and Europe. Routledge. Pearce, D. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. The economic journal, 101(407), 938-948. Pearson, M., & Smith, S. (1991). The European carbon tax: an assessment of the European Commission's proposals (No. R39). IFS Report. Pollitt, H., Lewney, R., Kiss-Dobronyi, B., Lin, X., (2021) ‘Modelling the economic effects of COVID-19 and possible green recovery plans: a post-Keynesian approach’. Climate Policy, Forthcoming Special Issue: COVID-19 recovery. Pollitt, H., Neuhoff, K., & Lin, X. (2020). The impact of implementing a consumption charge on carbon-intensive materials in Europe. Climate Policy, 20(sup1), S74-S89. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E., & Reilly, J. M. (2011). Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: A general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households. Energy economics, 33, S20-S33. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E., & Reilly, J. M. (2011). Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: A general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households. Energy economics, 33, S20-S33. Schechtl, M. (2023). The taxation of families: How gendered (de) familialization tax policies modify horizontal income inequality. Journal of Social Policy, 52(1), 63-84. Shaw, D., & Fu, Y. H. (2021). Climate clubs with tax revenue recycling, tariffs, and transfers. In Mendelsohn, R. O. (Ed.). (2021), CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS: Commemoration of Nobel Prize for William Nordhaus (pp. 103-116), World Scientific. Shaw, D., Fu, Y. H., & Chen, Y. Q. (2023). East Asia climate club: Pathway toward 2050 net-zero. Climate Change Economics, 14(04), 2340005. Shaw, D., Fu, Yu-Hsuan. (2020) ‘Climate clubs with tax revenue recycling, tariffs, and transfers’. Climate Change Economics, Vol. 11, Issue 4. Shei, C. H., Liu, J. C. E., & Hsieh, I. Y. L. (2024). Distributional effects of carbon pricing: An analysis of income-based versus expenditure-based approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141446. Spijker, E., Anger-Kraavi, A., Pollitt, H., & van de Ven, D. J. (2020). Evaluating integrated impacts of low-emission transitions in the livestock sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 482-492. Stone, C. (2015). The design and implementation of policies to protect low-income households under a carbon tax. Issue brief, Resources for the Future. Valencia, F. M., Mohren, C., Ramakrishnan, A., Merchert, M., Minx, J., & Steckel, J. (2023). Public support for carbon pricing policies and different revenue recycling options: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the survey literature. Research Square. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3528188/v1. Vogt-Schilb, A., Walsh, B., Feng, K., Di Capua, L., Liu, Y., Zuluaga, D., ... & Hubaceck, K. (2019). Cash transfers for pro-poor carbon taxes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nature Sustainability, 2(10), 941-948. Yang, H. Y., & Wang, T. F. (2002). Social incidence and economic costs of carbon limits: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Taiwan. Applied Economics Letters, 9(3), 185-189. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
經濟學系
111258014資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111258014 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 蕭代基 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Shaw, Dai-Gee en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 許毓庭 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsu, Yu-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 許毓庭 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hsu, Yu-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-Sep-2024 14:38:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-Sep-2024 14:38:02 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Sep-2024 14:38:02 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0111258014 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153289 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 經濟學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 111258014 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 氣候變遷已成為各國急迫處理的重大議題之一，我國亦無法置身事外，於2022年公布2050淨零排放路徑及策略總說明，隨後為加速減碳行動，將溫管法修正並更名為《氣候變遷因應法》修正內容中除了包含2050淨零目標，亦涵蓋了我國預計於2024年實施的碳費制度相關條文，而我國國發會在2023年公布的公正轉型戰略行動計畫中，則將淨零轉型中可能使民生消費支出增加而使中低收入戶受到負面衝擊的議題列入因應目標之一。 過往研究多關注實施碳定價政策後的總體效果，如減排效果、GDP、就業量等議題，較少研究關注在碳定價實施下，各類型家戶所會遭受到支出面、所得面的衝擊和影響，故本研究利用E3ME總體計量模型預測課徵碳稅後對各類商品、家戶所得的變動，以分析不同稅額的碳稅實施後，如何影響不同家戶的支出情形和負擔。 接著本研究使用我國家庭收支調查原始資料，先將家戶依可支配所得進行分組，並將碳稅稅收進行不同比例的運用，以了解其改善所得分配之效果。進而利用家庭收支調查中可獲取的家戶特徵來進行分析，以了解具有何種特徵的家庭可能在碳稅實施下面臨較平均而言為高的負面衝擊，以辨別出淨零轉型下的脆弱群體。 本研究發現，低所得家庭在碳稅課徵下面臨較高所得家庭更大的負面衝擊，如將碳稅收入百分之百進行定額移轉，各所得組皆可獲得正的淨所得並可有效改善中低所得組的衝擊；如只使用百分之五十的碳稅收入返還於民，各所得組皆為負的淨所得，且仍為低所得者有較高的負擔，故本文進而探討兩種僅針對中低所得家戶的返還方式，發現只針對中低所得家戶進行發還，在情境一和情境二分別只需運用17.91%和18.33%的碳稅收入，即可抵銷中低所得家戶的負面衝擊；如使用返還金額加倍（定額移轉予全民的金額乘以二，並只返還給中低所得家戶）的作法，在情境一和二分別只需運用27.38%和27.39%的碳稅收入，即可使中低所得家戶有正的淨所得增額。 最後，本研究在脆弱家戶特徵的分析上，分別以全體家戶和僅以所得級距一之家戶特徵進行分析，如以全體家戶進行分析，高齡家庭、經濟戶長65歲以上之家庭、教育程度國中之經濟戶長、單人家庭、夫婦二人家庭、祖孫二代家庭有較高的支出負擔比例，其中祖孫二代家庭、所得級距一的家戶支出金額增加較少且該增額卻占其所得比例高於全體平均，屬於本文所定義之脆弱家戶；如僅以所得級距一的家戶進行分析，在級距一的家戶中，不論使用何種特徵分類，其負擔比例都會略高於全體算出來的負擔比例，故在級距一中我們辨別出負擔比例高於級距一全體平均負擔比例的特徵，有：高齡家庭、經濟戶長65歲以上之家庭、經濟戶長教育程度大學以上、經濟戶長教育程度高中職及專科、核心家庭以及夫婦二人家庭。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Previous research has mostly focused on the overall effects of implementing carbon pricing policies, such as emission reduction, GDP, and employment. However, there has been less focus on the impact on expenditures and incomes of different household types under carbon pricing. Therefore, this study uses the E3ME macro-econometric model to predict changes in the costs of various goods and household incomes after the imposition of a carbon tax. The analysis aims to understand how different carbon tax rates affect household spending and financial burdens. We use the Taiwan Family Income and Expenditure Survey to group households based on disposable income and applies carbon tax revenues in various proportions to assess the effect on income distribution. By analyzing household characteristics available in the survey, this essay identifies which types of households might face higher-than-average negative impacts under carbon tax implementation, thereby identifying vulnerable households in the net-zero transition. This essay finds that low-income households face greater negative impacts compared to higher-income households under carbon taxation. If 100% of the carbon tax revenue is returned equally, all income groups can achieve a net gain, effectively mitigating the impact on low-income groups. However, if only 50% of the carbon tax revenue is returned, all income groups experience a net loss, with low-income households bearing a higher burden. Therefore, we further explored two redistribution methods targeting only middle and low-income households. It finds that targeting only middle and low-income households would require using just 17.91% and 18.33% of the carbon tax revenue in scenarios one and two, respectively, to offset the negative impacts on these households. Additionally, doubling the amount of redistribution would require using only 27.38% and 27.39% of the carbon tax revenue in scenarios one and two, respectively, to achieve a net gain for middle and low-income households. Finally, we analyze the characteristics of vulnerable households by examining all households and those in the lowest income bracket. For all households, those with elderly members, heads of households over 65, heads of households with an education level below elementary school, one-person family, couple family, grandfamily, and three-generation family bear higher expenditure burdens. When analyzing only the lowest income bracket, households with elderly members, heads of households over 65, heads of households with higher education levels (university or above), and core families bear higher burdens than the average for the entire income bracket. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究對象與範圍 5 第三節 研究架構 6 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 碳稅累退性及綠色稅制改革 7 第二節 稅收循環做法 9 第三節 脆弱家戶辨別 11 第四節 通膨不平等 12 第五節 E3ME模型應用 15 第三章 研究方法 17 第一節 E3ME總體計量模型 17 第二節 物價指數及消費金額變化 22 第四章 資料處理及情境設定 25 第一節 資料來源及處理 25 第二節 情境設定 29 第五章 實證結果 34 第一節 物價上漲分析 34 第二節 依可支配所得分 37 第三節 依家庭高齡人口數分 53 第四節 依經濟戶長年齡分 59 第五節 依經濟戶長教育程度分 65 第六節 依家庭組織型態分 71 第七節 低所得組依高齡人口數分 78 第八節 低所得組依經濟戶長年齡分 81 第九節 低所得組依經濟戶長教育程度分 84 第十節 低所得組依家庭組織型態分 87 第十一節 總體經濟效果 91 第六章 結論與未來建議 94 第一節 結論 94 第二節 未來研究方向 97 參考文獻 100 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4580324 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111258014 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 環境稅制改革 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 稅收循環 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 定額移轉 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 累退性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 脆弱家戶 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) climate change en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) revenue recycling policy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) lump-sum transfer en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) carbon tax en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) vulnerable households en_US dc.title (題名) 碳稅與稅收循環政策對脆弱家戶影響之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Impacts of the Carbon Tax and Revenue Recycling Policy on Vulnerable Households en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王寳貫、蕭代基（2023）。淨零之路:臺灣的雙贏策略。中央研究院環境變遷研究中心。 行政院主計總處（2023）。111年家庭收支調查(AA170047)【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。 吳聰敏（2005）。台灣農村地區之消費者物價指數: 1902–1941。經濟論文叢刊，33(4)，321-355。 沈柏彥（2018）。臺北市高齡家庭消費負擔分析。臺北市政府主計處，統計分析應用報告。 徐士勳（2003）。「綠色財政改革的可行性分析與規劃─子計畫三: 我國綠色租稅改革的社經影響評估 (II)」。國立臺灣大學農業經濟學系暨研究所。 楊子菡、蘇漢邦（2002）。綠色租稅改革的租稅福利成本與結構效果。農業與經濟，(29)，29-55。 楊家瑞（2016）。財稅資料低所得報稅戶背景分析。政府機關資訊通報，(343)，15-20。 經濟部能源署（2023）。112年能源統計手冊。臺北市：經濟部能源署。 蕭代基、洪志銘（2010）。綠色稅制與產業轉型。永續產業發展，22-30。 蕭代基、傅俞瑄、林師模、黃琝琇（2020），減碳政策在台灣：補貼或課稅？，綠色經濟期刊，6，A1-23。 蕭代基、黃琝琇、林師模、傅俞瑄（2022），國際碳邊境調整機制對台灣減碳與經濟的影響，臺灣能源期刊，9(1)，1-24。 Argente, D., & Lee, M. (2021). Cost of living inequality during the great recession. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(2), 913-952. Arrow, K. J. (1958). The measurement of price changes. The relationship of prices to economic stability and growth, 77-87. Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M., Baklanov, A., Thomson, M., Wagner, F., Geden, O., ... & Hall, J. W. (2021). Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy. Nature, 596(7872), 377-383. Bor, Y. J., & Huang, Y. (2010). Energy taxation and the double dividend effect in Taiwan's energy conservation policy—an empirical study using a computable general equilibrium model. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2086-2100. Bovenberg, A. L., & de Mooij, R. A. (1994). Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 1085–1089. Boyce, J. K. (2018). Carbon pricing: effectiveness and equity. Ecological Economics, 150, 52-61. Boyce, J. K., & Riddle, M. (2007). Cap and dividend: how to curb global warming while protecting the incomes of American families. PERI Working Papers, 108. Bureau, D., Henriet, F., & Schubert, K. (2019). A proposal for the climate: Taxing carbon not people. Notes du conseil danalyse economique, 50(2), 1-12. Bussolo, M., Krolage, C., Makovec, M., Peichl, A., Stockli, M., Torre, I., & Wittneben, C. (2018). Vertical and horizontal redistribution: The cases of Western and Eastern Europe. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8657). Carattini, S., Carvalho, M., & Fankhauser, S. (2018). Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(5), e531. De Bruin, K. C., Monaghan, E., & Yakut, A. M. (2019). The economic and distributional impacts of an increased carbon tax with different revenue recycling schemes (No. 95). Research Series. Dellaccio, O., Dicks, J., McGovern, M., & Stenning, J. (2022). The distributional effects of pathways to net-zero and the implications for fuel and transport poverty. Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions. Dobbins, A., & Fahl, U. (2023). Effects of Carbon Tax Redistribution Schemes on Energy Welfare of Households in Germany. In Vulnerable Households in the Energy Transition: Energy Poverty, Demographics and Policies (pp. 139-171). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Dolls, M., Doorley, K., Paulus, A., Schneider, H., & Sommer, E. (2018). Demographic Change and the European Income Distribution. Working Paper, EUROMOD. Eisner, A., Kulmer, V., & Kortschak, D. (2021). Distributional effects of carbon pricing when considering household heterogeneity: An EASI application for Austria. Energy Policy, 156, 112478. Feng, C. C., Chang, K. F., Lin, J. X., & Lin, S. M. (2020). The distributional effect of a carbon tax on income in Taiwan. Sustainability, 12(4), 1530. Fremstad, A., & Paul, M. (2017). A distributional analysis of a carbon tax and dividend in the United States. Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper, 434. Garner, T. I., Johnson, D. S., & Kokoski, M. F. (1996). An experimental consumer price index for the poor. Monthly Lab. Rev., 119, 32. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend: a reader's guide. International tax and public finance, 2, 157-183. Grainger, C. A., & Kolstad, C. D. (2010). Who pays a price on carbon?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 359-376. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Vivid Economics (2020) Carbon pricing options for Taiwan. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, and Vivid Economics Hagemann, R. P. (1982). The variability of inflation rates across household types. journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 14(4), 494-510. Hamilton, K., & Cameron, G. (1994). Simulating the distributional effects of a Canadian carbon tax. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 385-399. Hassett, K. A., Mathur, A., & Metcalf, G. E. (2009). The incidence of a US carbon tax: A lifetime and regional analysis. The Energy Journal, 30(2), 155-178. Hobijn, B., & Lagakos, D. (2005). Inflation inequality in the United States. review of income and Wealth, 51(4), 581-606. IPCC (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp. 1-34, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001 Jaravel, X. (2021). Inflation inequality: Measurement, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Economics, 13(1), 599-629. Kiss-Dobronyi, B., Fazekas, D., Pollitt, H. (2021) ‘Macroeconomic assessment of possible Green Recovery scenarios in Visegrad countries’. Society and Economy, Vol. 43, Issue 3. Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Combet, E., Edenhofer, O., Hepburn, C., Rafaty, R., & Stern, N. (2018). Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nature Climate Change, 8(8), 669-677. Lee, M., & Sanger, T. (2008). Is BC's Carbon Tax Fair?: An Impact Analysis for Different Income Levels. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, BC Office. Lee, S., Chewpreecha U., Pollitt H. and Kojima S. (2018) ‘An economic assessment of carbon tax reform to meet Japan’s NDC target under different nuclear assumptions using the E3ME model’, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 411-429. Lee, S., Pollitt, H., & Park, P. S. (2015). Low-carbon sustainable future in East Asia. Roudtledge. Lehmann, P., Sijm, J., Gawel, E., Strunz, S., Chewpreecha, U., Mercure, J-F. and Pollitt, H (2018) ‘Addressing multiple externalities from electricity generation: a case for EU renewable energy policy beyond 2020?’, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies’, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 255–283. Lieu, P. T., Chang, C., & Chang, J. R. (2004). inflation rate Variations across household: empirical evidence from taiwan. Available at SSRN 490457. Malerba, D., Gaentzsch, A., & Ward, H. (2021). Mitigating poverty: The patterns of multiple carbon tax and recycling regimes for Peru. Energy Policy, 149, 111961. McLennan, M. (2023). The global risks report 2023 18th edition. Cologny, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Metcalf, G. E. (2017). A distributional analysis of green tax reforms. In Distributional Effects of Environmental and Energy Policy (pp. 65-91). Routledge. Michael, R. T. (1975). Variation Across Household in the Rate of Inflation (No. w0074). National Bureau of Economic Research. Mori, A., Ekins, P., Speck, S., Lee, S. C., & Ueta, K. (Eds.). (2013). The green fiscal mechanism and reform for low carbon development: East Asia and Europe. Routledge. Pearce, D. (1991). The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. The economic journal, 101(407), 938-948. Pearson, M., & Smith, S. (1991). The European carbon tax: an assessment of the European Commission's proposals (No. R39). IFS Report. Pollitt, H., Lewney, R., Kiss-Dobronyi, B., Lin, X., (2021) ‘Modelling the economic effects of COVID-19 and possible green recovery plans: a post-Keynesian approach’. Climate Policy, Forthcoming Special Issue: COVID-19 recovery. Pollitt, H., Neuhoff, K., & Lin, X. (2020). The impact of implementing a consumption charge on carbon-intensive materials in Europe. Climate Policy, 20(sup1), S74-S89. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E., & Reilly, J. M. (2011). Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: A general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households. Energy economics, 33, S20-S33. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E., & Reilly, J. M. (2011). Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: A general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households. Energy economics, 33, S20-S33. Schechtl, M. (2023). The taxation of families: How gendered (de) familialization tax policies modify horizontal income inequality. Journal of Social Policy, 52(1), 63-84. Shaw, D., & Fu, Y. H. (2021). Climate clubs with tax revenue recycling, tariffs, and transfers. In Mendelsohn, R. O. (Ed.). (2021), CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS: Commemoration of Nobel Prize for William Nordhaus (pp. 103-116), World Scientific. Shaw, D., Fu, Y. H., & Chen, Y. Q. (2023). East Asia climate club: Pathway toward 2050 net-zero. Climate Change Economics, 14(04), 2340005. Shaw, D., Fu, Yu-Hsuan. (2020) ‘Climate clubs with tax revenue recycling, tariffs, and transfers’. Climate Change Economics, Vol. 11, Issue 4. Shei, C. H., Liu, J. C. E., & Hsieh, I. Y. L. (2024). Distributional effects of carbon pricing: An analysis of income-based versus expenditure-based approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141446. Spijker, E., Anger-Kraavi, A., Pollitt, H., & van de Ven, D. J. (2020). Evaluating integrated impacts of low-emission transitions in the livestock sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 482-492. Stone, C. (2015). The design and implementation of policies to protect low-income households under a carbon tax. Issue brief, Resources for the Future. Valencia, F. M., Mohren, C., Ramakrishnan, A., Merchert, M., Minx, J., & Steckel, J. (2023). Public support for carbon pricing policies and different revenue recycling options: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the survey literature. Research Square. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3528188/v1. Vogt-Schilb, A., Walsh, B., Feng, K., Di Capua, L., Liu, Y., Zuluaga, D., ... & Hubaceck, K. (2019). Cash transfers for pro-poor carbon taxes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nature Sustainability, 2(10), 941-948. Yang, H. Y., & Wang, T. F. (2002). Social incidence and economic costs of carbon limits: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Taiwan. Applied Economics Letters, 9(3), 185-189. zh_TW
