Marginal tax reform, externalities and income distribution

By I. Mayeres, Stef Proost. 2001

147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Gender Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0ff43fa5d0846f4f51b682fbb713ce598cb51ea

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. Erik T. Verhoef
2. Felix Creutzig
3. Takuya Maruyama
4. Stef Proost
5. Agachai Sumalee
6. Vincent A. C. van den Berg
7. K. van Dender
8. Leonardo J. Basso

In Gender Studies

1. Erik T. Verhoef

Citations in the corpus

• Reducing Urban Road Transportation Externalities: Road Pricing in Theory and in Practice (2011, unknown): “Santos and Newbery (2001) examined combined congestion and environmental pricing for nine pollutants in eight British towns and concluded that the environmental benefits are unlikely to reach 10 percent of the benefits from congestion relief.”
• Labour Supply and Commuting (2009, unknown): “The main implication of our results is that when introducing a road tax, a budget-neutral reduction in the income tax, as advocated in the literature (Parry and Bento, 2001; Mayeres and Proost, 2001), may not be necessary in order to increase welfare.”
• Optimal urban transport pricing in the presence of congestion, economies of density and costly public funds (2008, background): “…transport is more intensively used by low income groups, it may be 19 Brueckner (2003) reports that fares cover approximately 50% of operating costs in European cities, against 38% for the U.S. 25 justified to price it below marginal social costs for reasons of equity (Mayeres and Proost, 2001).”
• Efficiency and equity comparison of cordon- and area-based road pricing schemes using a trip-chain equilibrium model (2007, background): “Mayeres and Proost (2001) proposed a weighted social welfare approach to reconcile the equity impact of a road pricing policy by giving a higher weight to a group considered as a disadvantage group in the society (e.g. low-income group).”
• Second-Best Congestion Pricing Schemes in the Monocentric City (2005, background): “An exception is the work by authors such as Mayeres and Proost (2001) and Parry and Bento (2001), who study traffic congestion and road pricing for commuters in general equilibrium settings, allowing for distortions on the labour market.”
• Winning or losing from dynamic bottleneck congestion pricing?: The distributional effects of road pricing with heterogeneity in values of time and schedule delay (2011, background): “To name a few recent examples, West (2004) studies pricing of vehicle pollution; Mayeres and Proost (2001) investigate how the attractiveness of various road and public transport policies vary with the degree of inequality aversion in a general equilibrium framework; Parry (2002) compares…”
• The Double Dividend Hypothesis of Environmental Taxes: A Survey (2003, unknown): “3 Exceptions are Johansson (1994) Mayeres and Proost (2001), Schöb (1995), Pirttilä and Schöb (1999) and Bulckaen and Stampini (2001).”
• Decarbonizing urban transport in European cities: four cases show possibly high co-benefits (2012, background): “The evaluation of scenarios focuses on various social costs and resulting co-benefits (reduction in social costs) and follows Mayeres and Proost (2001) and Litman (2011) but has now an explicit temporal dimension: scenario outcomes in the year 2040 are compared to measured data in 2010.”