4.7 Article

Determining the optimal carbon tax rate based on data envelopment analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 172, 期 -, 页码 900-908

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.127

关键词

Carbon tax policy; Government revenue; Government expenditure; Carbon emissions; Centralized DEA approach

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71701111, 71322101, 71631006]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M602040]
  3. Shandong Province Social Science Planning Project [16DGLJ06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon tax policy is widely used to control greenhouse gases and how to determine a suitable carbon tax rate is very important for policy makers considering the trade-off between environmental protection and economic development. In an industry regulated by carbon tax policy, we consider two competing firms who sell ordinary products and green products respectively. In order to promote the firm who sells ordinary product to reduce carbon emissions, the government of China imposes carbon tax on the or- dinary products. For the government, three objectives are considered when it makes carbon tax policy. They are increasing the government revenue, reducing the government expenditure and decreasing the carbon emissions. For the firms, it is important to explore their pricing strategies taken into account of the government tax policy. To find an optimal carbon tax rate and to achieve the three objectives simultaneously, we consider this as a multiple criteria decision-making problem. Hence, we propose to use a centralized data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach to solve it. We find that when one firm produces ordinary products and the other produces green products; the government may set a high tax rate. While when both firms sell ordinary products, the optimal tax policy for each firm is different and the government may impose a higher tax rate for one firm and a lower tax rate for the other firm. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据