KDI Journal of Economic Policy

Korea Development Institute (한국개발연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Improving Social Acceptance for Carbon Taxation in South Korea

  • Received : 2022.11.14
  • Published : 2023.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Carbon pricing is in the spotlight as an economically efficient policy to limit global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We examine how policymakers can improve social acceptance of a carbon tax, which is the main obstacle in implementing the policy. We conduct a survey experiment to analyze this topic and adopt two different interventions focusing on the use of revenue from a carbon tax and types of information to be provided. Regarding revenue use, we consider 1) tax reductions, 2) lump-sum transfers, and 3) green project investments. For information types, we focus on 1) the economic value of a carbon tax, and 2) the environmental value of a carbon tax. We find that lump-sum transfers have negative impacts on social acceptance of a carbon tax. For those who perceive climate change as a serious issue, moreover, both lump-sum transfers and tax reductions have negative impacts on acceptability. Regardless of the type of information provided, on the other hand, the social acceptance of a carbon tax is increased after the provision of information. Furthermore, the impact of information provision on the social acceptance interacts with the revenue use impacts. When the revenue use and the type of information are consistent with the aim of the policy, the effects of these strategies can be amplified.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, S., I. Marinescu, and B. Shor. 2019. "Can Pigou at the polls stop us melting the poles?" NBER Working.
  2. Baranzini, A. and S. Carattini. 2017. "Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 19: 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-016-0144-7
  3. Beuermann, C. and T. Santarius. 2006. "Ecological tax reform in Germany: handling two hot potatoes at the same time," Energy Policy, 34: 917-929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.045
  4. Carattini, S., A. Baranzini, P. Thalmann, F. Varone, and F. Vohringer. 2017. "Green taxes in a post-Paris world: Are millions of nays inevitable?" Environmental Resource Economics, 68: 97-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0133-8
  5. Carattini, S., M. Carvalho, and S. Frankhauser. 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," WIREs Climate Change, 9.
  6. Cook, J. and S. Lewandowsky. 2016. "Rational irrationality: modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks," Topics in Cognitive Science, 8: 160-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12186
  7. Compton, J., S. van der Linden, J. Cook, and M. Basol. 2021. "Inoculation theory in the posttruth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories," Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(6).
  8. Cox, E. P. 1980. "The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review," Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700401
  9. Dolsak, N., C. Adoplph, and A. Prakash. 2020. "Policy design and public support for carbon tax: evidence from a 2018 U.S. National online survey experiment," Public Administration, 98(4): 905-921. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12657
  10. Douenne, T. and A. Fabre. 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation, and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, 169.
  11. Dresner, S., L. Dunne, P. Clinch, and C. Beuermann. 2006. "Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: An introduction to the special issue," Energy Policy, 34: 895-904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.08.043
  12. Fremstad, A. and M. Paul. 2019. "The impact of a carbon tax on inequality," Ecological Economics, 163: 88-97.
  13. Fryer, R. G., P. Harms, and M. O. Jackson. 2019. "Updating Beliefs when Evidence is Open to Interpretation: Implications for Bias and Polarization," Journal of the European Economic Association, 17(5): 1470-1501.
  14. Goulder, L. H. and W. H. Parry. 2008, "Instrument choice in environmental policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2(2).
  15. Goulder, L. H., M. A. C. Hafstead, G. Kim, and X. Long. 2019. "Impacts of a carbon tax across US household income groups: What are the equity-efficiency trade-offs?" Journal of Public Economics, 175: 44-64.
  16. Hammar, H. and S. C. Jagers. 2006. "Can trust in politicians explain individuals' support for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax," Climate Policy, 5: 613-625. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2006.9685582
  17. Hawthorne, G., J. Mouthaan, D. Forbes, and R. W. Novaco. 2006. "Response categories and anger measurement: Do fewer categories result in poorer measurement?" Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41, 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-005-0986-y
  18. Hsu, S., J. Walters, and A. Purgas. 2008. "Pollution tax heuristics: An empirical study of willingness to pay higher gasoline taxes," Energy Policy, 36: 3612-3619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.010
  19. Jaffe, A. B., R. G. Newell, and R. N. Stavins. 2005. "Tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, 54: 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.027
  20. Jagers, S. C. and H. Hammar. 2009. "Environmental taxation for good and for bad: the efficiency and legitimacy of Sweden's carbon tax," Environmental Politics, 18(2): 218-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802682601
  21. Jagers, S. C., J. Martinsson, and S. Matti. 2019. "The impact of compensatory measures on public support for carbon taxation: an experimental study in Sweden," Climate Policy, 19(2): 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1470963
  22. Kaplowitz, S. A. and A. M. McCright. 2015. "Effects of policy characteristics and justifications on acceptance of a gasoline tax increase," Energy Policy, 87: 370-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.037
  23. Kim, S., S. T. Kim, and Y. J. Chun. 2015. "Environmental regulation, process innovation and social cohesion in Korea," Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(15).
  24. Kotchen, M. J., Z. M. Turk, and A. A. Leiserowitz. 2017. "Public willingness to pay for a US carbon tax and preferences for spending the revenue," Environmental Research Letters.
  25. Lilliestam, J., A. Patt, and G. Bersalli. 2020. "The effect of carbon pricing on technological change for full energy decarbonization: A review of empirical ex-post evidence," WIREs Climate Change, 12(1).
  26. Maestre-Andres, S., S. Drewsa, and J. van den Bergh. 2019. "Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature," Climate Policy, 19(9).
  27. McGuire, W. J. 1970. "A vaccine for brainwash," Psychology Today, 3(9), 37-64.
  28. Metcalf, G. E. 2009. "Designing a carbon tax to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(1): 63-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ren015
  29. Mildenberger, M., E. Lachapelle, K. Harrison, and I. Stadelmann-Steffen. 2022. "Limited evidence that carbon tax rebates have increased public support for carbon pricing," Nature Climate Change, 12, 121-122.
  30. Pearce, D. 1991. "The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming," Economic Journal, 101(407): 938-948. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233865
  31. Rabin, M. and J. L. Schrag. 1999. "First impressions matter: a model of confirmatory bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1): 37-82. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399555945
  32. Saelen, H. and S. Kallbekken. 2011. "A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway," Ecological Economics, 70: 2181-2190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.024
  33. Stiglitz, J. E. 2019. "Addressing climate change through price and non-price interventions," European Economic Review, 119: 594-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.05.007
  34. Thalmann, P. 2004. "The public acceptance of green taxes: 2 million voters express their opinion," Public Choice, 119: 179-217. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PUCH.0000024165.18082.db
  35. van der Linden, S., E. Mailbach, and A. Leiserowitz. 2015. "Improving public engagement with climate change: five "Best Practice" insights from psychological science," Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6): 758-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516
  36. Weng, L. J. 2004. "Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6): 956-972. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674
  37. Wilson, A. 2014. "Bounded memory and biases in information processing," Econometrica, 82(6): 2257-2294. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12188
  38. Yoon, Y. 2021. Carbon Taxation Policy in Korea, Policy Study, 2021-08, KDI (in Korean).