IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i8p1576-d1212357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Environmental Tax Scheme in China’s Large-Scale Pig Farming: Balancing Economic Burden and Responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • Tiemei Yan

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, No. 1 Weigang, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Tong Zhang

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, No. 1 Weigang, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Zhanguo Zhu

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Agricultural University, No. 1 Weigang, Nanjing 210095, China)

Abstract

China has implemented an environmental protection tax for large-scale agricultural farming to address environmental pollution caused by livestock and poultry breeding. Studying the environmental management of large-scale pig farming is crucial for controlling agricultural pollution. However, the economic impact and effectiveness of the current tax design, including responsibility sharing, tax rates, and taxpayers, are unclear. This study aims to address these gaps. Firstly, two types of taxation principles, production-based and consumption-based, are established, and their effects on pollution emissions distribution between pig production and marketing areas are comparatively analyzed. Secondly, the economic impact of consumption-based environmental taxes is estimated from inter-provincial and rural–urban perspectives under the current tax mechanism. Thirdly, a new alternative tax rate aligned with inter-provincial pig consumption levels is proposed based on the consumption principle. By comparing alternative tax systems, the potential impact of the current environmental tax on the regional economic burden is analyzed. The results highlighted that a production-based tax system resulted in 83% of regions experiencing varying degrees of implicit emission transfers, and a consumption-based tax system helped coordinate the environmental economic burden between pig production and marketing regions. Additionally, a linear relationship between tax rates and pork consumption expenditure not only alleviated the overall economic burden, leading to tax savings in 30% of regions, but also increased the national environmental revenue from the pig farming industry, resulting in a remarkable 147% rise in overall environmental tax revenue. These findings provide theoretical support for adjusting responsibility and economic burden through environmental tax modifications, facilitating the establishment of a compensation mechanism for the benefits between pig production and marketing areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiemei Yan & Tong Zhang & Zhanguo Zhu, 2023. "The Environmental Tax Scheme in China’s Large-Scale Pig Farming: Balancing Economic Burden and Responsibility," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:8:p:1576-:d:1212357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/8/1576/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/8/1576/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmutzler, Armin & Goulder, Lawrence H., 1997. "The Choice between Emission Taxes and Output Taxes under Imperfect Monitoring," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 51-64, January.
    2. Liang, Qiao-Mei & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2012. "Distributional impacts of taxing carbon in China: Results from the CEEPA model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 545-551.
    3. Alton, Theresa & Arndt, Channing & Davies, Rob & Hartley, Faaiqa & Makrelov, Konstantin & Thurlow, James & Ubogu, Dumebi, 2014. "Introducing carbon taxes in South Africa," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 344-354.
    4. Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Konrad, Maria Theresia Hedegaard & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Gyldenkærne, Steen, 2023. "Ex-post evaluation of the Danish pesticide tax: A novel and effective tax design," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    5. Ke Wang & Jiayu Wang & Klaus Hubacek & Zhifu Mi & Yi‐Ming Wei, 2020. "A cost–benefit analysis of the environmental taxation policy in China: A frontier analysis‐based environmentally extended input–output optimization method," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(3), pages 564-576, June.
    6. Ren, Jie & Chen, Xi & Hu, Jian, 2020. "The effect of production- versus consumption-based emission tax under demand uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 82-98.
    7. Wier, Mette & Birr-Pedersen, Katja & Jacobsen, Henrik Klinge & Klok, Jacob, 2005. "Are CO2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the Danish experience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 239-251, January.
    8. Peters, Glen P., 2008. "From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 13-23, March.
    9. Bruce Morley, 2012. "Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of environmental taxes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(18), pages 1817-1820, December.
    10. Stefano Carattini & Maria Carvalho & Sam Fankhauser, 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    11. Kevin Parris, 2011. "Impact of Agriculture on Water Pollution in OECD Countries: Recent Trends and Future Prospects," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 33-52, March.
    12. Wang, Qian & Hubacek, Klaus & Feng, Kuishuang & Wei, Yi-Ming & Liang, Qiao-Mei, 2016. "Distributional effects of carbon taxation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1123-1131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pottier, Antonin, 2022. "Expenditure elasticity and income elasticity of GHG emissions: A survey of literature on household carbon footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    2. Wesseh, Presley K. & Lin, Boqiang & Atsagli, Philip, 2017. "Carbon taxes, industrial production, welfare and the environment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 305-313.
    3. Wang, Qian & Hubacek, Klaus & Feng, Kuishuang & Wei, Yi-Ming & Liang, Qiao-Mei, 2016. "Distributional effects of carbon taxation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1123-1131.
    4. Assaad Ghazouani & Wanjun Xia & Mehdi Ben Jebli & Umer Shahzad, 2020. "Exploring the Role of Carbon Taxation Policies on CO 2 Emissions: Contextual Evidence from Tax Implementation and Non-Implementation European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Moz-Christofoletti, Maria Alice & Pereda, Paula Carvalho, 2021. "Winners and losers: the distributional impacts of a carbon tax in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    6. Wang, Qian & Hubacek, Klaus & Feng, Kuishuang & Guo, Lin & Zhang, Kun & Xue, Jinjun & Liang, Qiao-Mei, 2019. "Distributional impact of carbon pricing in Chinese provinces," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 327-340.
    7. Wesseh, Presley K. & Lin, Boqiang, 2016. "Modeling environmental policy with and without abatement substitution: A tradeoff between economics and environment?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 34-43.
    8. Zhang, Kun & Xue, Mei-Mei & Feng, Kuishuang & Liang, Qiao-Mei, 2019. "The economic effects of carbon tax on China’s provinces," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 784-802.
    9. Maria Alice Moz-Christofoletti & Paula Carvalho Pereda, 2021. "Winners and losers: the distributional impact of a carbon tax in Brazil," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2021_08, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    10. Macdonald, Kevin & Patrinos, Harry Anthony, 2021. "Education Quality, Green Technology, and the Economic Impact of Carbon Pricing," IZA Discussion Papers 14792, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Andrea Amado & Koji Kotani & Makoto Kakinaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2023. "Carbon tax for cleaner-energy transition: A vignette experiment in Japan," Working Papers SDES-2023-6, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2023.
    12. Wesseh, Presley K. & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Optimal carbon taxes for China and implications for power generation, welfare, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-8.
    13. Julien Lefevre, 2018. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Impacts of the Adoption of a Carbon Pricing Instrument – Literature review," CIRED Working Papers hal-03128619, HAL.
    14. Yannic Rehm & Lucas Chancel, 2022. "Measuring the Carbon Content of Wealth Evidence from France and Germany," PSE Working Papers halshs-03828939, HAL.
    15. Tram T.H. Nguyen and Wonho Song, 2021. "Carbon Pricing and Income Inequality: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Economic Development, Chung-Ang Unviersity, Department of Economics, vol. 46(2), pages 155-182, June.
    16. Qian Wang & Qiao-Mei Liang & Bing Wang & Fang-Xun Zhong, 2016. "Impact of household expenditures on CO2 emissions in China: Income-determined or lifestyle-driven?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(1), pages 353-379, November.
    17. de Bruin, Kelly & Yakut, Aykut Mert, 2024. "Efficiency–equity trade-off in the Irish carbon tax: A CGE investigation of mixed revenue recycling schemes," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Su, Bin & Ang, B.W., 2014. "Input–output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: A multi-region model for China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 377-384.
    19. Chepeliev, Maksym & Osorio-Rodarte, Israel & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2021. "Distributional impacts of carbon pricing policies under the Paris Agreement: Inter and intra-regional perspectives," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Asane-Otoo, Emmanuel, 2015. "Carbon footprint and emission determinants in Africa," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 426-435.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:8:p:1576-:d:1212357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.