Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns

By Steffen Kallbekken, H. Sælen. 2011

309 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8315010ce594c240bab6a2b050cbf00b32ba9d5c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. S. Carattini
2. Stefan Drews
3. A. Baranzini
4. Ayşe Uyduranoğlu
5. Z. Gevrek
6. Jeroen van den Bergh
7. Sara Maestre-Andrés
8. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. S. Carattini
2. A. Baranzini
3. Stefan Drews
4. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh
5. Thomas Douenne
6. A. Fabre
7. Ayşe Uyduranoğlu
8. Z. Gevrek

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

1. S. Carattini
2. A. Baranzini
3. Stefan Drews
4. Ayşe Uyduranoğlu
5. Z. Gevrek
6. Thomas Douenne
7. A. Fabre
8. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh

Citations in the corpus

• French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies (2020, background): “As people tend to see carbon taxation as effective only if it finances green investments (Sælen & Kallbekken, 2011), these policies legitimize the implementation of a tax and increase its acceptance.”
• The acceptability of efficiency-enhancing environmental taxes, subsidies and regulation: An experimental investigation (2012, background): “, 2010, 2011), and perceptions of unfairness and coerciveness can create resistance to efficiency-enhancing taxes and regulations (Baron and Jurney, 1993; Dresner et al., 2006; Eriksson et al., 2006; Fujii et al., 2004; Kallbekken and Sælen, 2011).”
• Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda (2020, background): “Individual outcomes are sometimes not related to acceptability at all and both expected environmental and collective outcomes tend to explain more variance than do consequences for oneself [32,47,49,60,68,78].”
• Public Preferences for Carbon Tax Attributes (2015, background): “Moreover, the revenue raised from a CT can be used to alleviate concerns over the environmental effectiveness of the tax through earmarking 8To date, 13 countries (i.e., Australia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United King”
• What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies (2016, background): “For instance, Kallbekken and Sælen (2011) show that individuals in their Norwegian sample were more likely to support a fuel tax if they believed the tax was going to reduce driving and exert a positive effect on climate change (see also Schuitema, Steg, & Rothengatter, 2010).”
• Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data (2017, methodology): “We obtain from our survey data on e.g. income, education, age, gender, car holding (as proxy for carbon footprint, see Thalmann 2004; Kallbekken and Sælen 2011; Diederich and Goeschl 2013) and membership of environmental organizations (as proxy for pro-environmental behavior).”
• Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature (2019, background): “…2017; Clinch and Dunne, 2006; Clinch et al., 2006; Dresner et al., 2006a; Dresner et al., 2006b; Harwatt et al., 2011; Kallbekken and Aasen, 2010; Kallbekken and Saelen, 2011; Kaplowitz and McCright, 2015; Klok et al., 2006; Lo, 2013; Lo et al., 2013 α ; Owen et al., 2008 β ) Policy burden…”