IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p4142-d1395098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Injustice: The Effects of Environmental Taxes on Income Distribution in an Oligopolistic General Equilibrium Model

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald R. Kumar

    (Department of Economics and Finance, The Business School, RMIT University, Ho-Chi-Minh City 700000, Vietnam)

  • Peter J. Stauvermann

    (Department of Global Business and Economics, Changwon National University, Changwon 51140, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

We apply a static oligopolistic general equilibrium model to investigate the effects of an environmental tax on labor incomes, capital incomes, profits, and the distribution of income. The study is motivated by the fact that environmental taxation is one main political tool to realize environmental sustainability and support sustainable development. However, to ensure social and economic sustainability, the taxes applied must be perceived as fair by the majority of the civil society. Moreover, efforts to determine a fair taxation policy would ensure, inter alia, responsible consumption and production, and lower inequality in the economy, which are one of the two priorities of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 10 and 12). Therefore, it is necessary to determine the tax incidence to inform policymakers regarding the distribution of the tax burden. To examine environmental policy, we assume the government applies a policy objective to realize strong environmental sustainability, as proposed by the Dutch economist Rofie Hueting. The main result is that oligopolistic firms can shift the whole tax burden resulting from environmental taxes to workers and capital owners. Consequently, we show that environmental taxes can lead to more income inequality, and the more concentrated the markets, the bigger the social and economic inequality. Noting that addressing environmental problems is a priority of the UN SDGs, our analysis shows that approaching the issue using just environmental tax propositions is not advisable. These results of the analysis also provide a justification of why many members of the society tend to oppose environmental taxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2024. "Environmental Injustice: The Effects of Environmental Taxes on Income Distribution in an Oligopolistic General Equilibrium Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4142-:d:1395098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4142/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4142/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aubert, Diane & Chiroleu-Assouline, Mireille, 2019. "Environmental tax reform and income distribution with imperfect heterogeneous labour markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 60-82.
    2. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F. Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 180-185, May.
    3. Oliver Hart, 1982. "A Model of Imperfect Competition with Keynesian Features," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(1), pages 109-138.
    4. J. Peter Neary, 2007. "Cross-Border Mergers as Instruments of Comparative Advantage," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1229-1257.
    5. John Laitner, 1982. "Monopoly and Long-Run Capital Accumulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(1), pages 143-157, Spring.
    6. J. Peter Neary, 2010. "Two and a Half Theories of Trade†," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Jan De Loecker & Jan Eeckhout & Gabriel Unger, 2020. "The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications [“Econometric Tools for Analyzing Market Outcomes”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(2), pages 561-644.
    8. Solomon Hsiang & Paulina Oliva & Reed Walker, 2019. "The Distribution of Environmental Damages," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 83-103.
    9. Hueting, Roefie & Reijnders, Lucas, 2004. "Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the proper construction of sustainability indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 249-260, October.
    10. Michael Elsby & Bart Hobijn & Ayseful Sahin, 2013. "The Decline of the U.S. Labor Share," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 44(2 (Fall)), pages 1-63.
    11. Rudy Colacicco, 2015. "Ten Years Of General Oligopolistic Equilibrium: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 965-992, December.
    12. Hueting, Roefie, 1996. "Three persistent myths in the environmental debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 81-88, August.
    13. Peter Josef Stauvermann & Ronald Ravinesh Kumar, 2023. "Production Efficiency and Income Distribution with Competition Induced by Antitrust Measures," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-23, September.
    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. Kyoji Fukao & Cristiano Perugini, 2021. "The Long‐Run Dynamics of the Labor Share in Japan," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 67(2), pages 445-480, June.
    2. Jan Behringer, 2019. "Factor shares and the rise in corporate net lending," IMK Working Paper 202-2019, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    3. Guimarães, Luís & Mazeda Gil, Pedro, 2022. "Explaining the Labor Share: Automation Vs Labor Market Institutions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Loukas Karabarbounis & Brent Neiman, 2019. "Accounting for Factorless Income," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 167-228.
    5. Eggertsson, Gauti B. & Robbins, Jacob A. & Wold, Ella Getz, 2021. "Kaldor and Piketty’s facts: The rise of monopoly power in the United States," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(S), pages 19-38.
    6. ADACHI Daisuke & SAITO Yukiko, 2020. "Multinational Production and Labor Share," Discussion papers 20012, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Akcigit, Ufuk & Akgunduz, Yusuf Emre & Cilasun, Seyit Mumin & Ozcan-Tok, Elif & Yilmaz, Fatih, 2020. "Facts on business dynamism in Turkey," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Bom, Pedro R.D. & Erauskin, Iñaki, 2022. "Productive government investment and the labor share," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 347-363.
    9. Yang, Guang-Zhao & Si, Deng-Kui & Ning, Guang-Jie, 2023. "Does digital transformation reduce the labor income share in enterprises?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1526-1538.
    10. Amendola, Marco & Ciampa, Valerio & Germani, Lorenzo, 2024. "The distributional effects of labour market deregulation: Wage share and fixed-term contracts," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 328-338.
    11. Jose Barrales‐Ruiz & Ivan Mendieta‐Muñoz & Codrina Rada & Daniele Tavani & Rudiger von Arnim, 2022. "The distributive cycle: Evidence and current debates," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 468-503, April.
    12. Manuchehr Irandoust, 2024. "Employment and technology: Creative creation or creative destruction? An asymmetric analysis," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(2), pages 201-219, June.
    13. Wemy, Edouard, 2021. "Capital-labor substitution elasticity: A simulated method of moments approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 14-44.
    14. Peter J. Stauvermann & Ronald R. Kumar, 2022. "Does more market competition lead to higher income and utility in the long run?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 761-782, July.
    15. Dibyendu Maiti & Chiranjib Neogi, 2024. "Endogeneity-corrected stochastic frontier with market imperfections," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 1149-1183, September.
    16. Jan Behringer, 2019. "Factor shares and the rise in corporate net lending," IMK Working Paper 202-2019, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    17. Jose Barrales-Ruiz, Ivan Mendieta-Muñoz, Codrina Rada, Daniele Tavani, Rudiger von Arnim, 2020. "The distributive cycle: Evidence and current debates," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2020_07, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
    18. Sumit K. Majumdar, 2021. "Horizontal shareholding, technology, and compensation: An evaluation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1836-1848, October.
    19. Casacuberta, Carlos & Gandelman, Néstor, 2023. "Wage councils, product markups and wage markdowns: Evidence from Uruguay," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    20. Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2022. "Imperfect Competition, Real Estate Prices and New Stylized Facts," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, February.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4142-:d:1395098. 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.