Assessing the impacts of an oil products tax in China using a computable general equilibrium model

  • Yan Xu
  • Toshihiko Masui


This study assesses the impacts of introducing an oil products tax on the general economy, economic structure, energy consumption, and air pollutant emissions (CO2, SO2, and NOx) in China using a static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. The conclusion is that taxation on oil products is useful for slowing runaway oil demand and oil imports with small gross domestic product (GDP) loss and welfare impacts. Four types of revenue recycling schemes—Lump Sum, Food Tax Break, Manufacturing Tax Break, and Indirect Tax Break—are also assessed to investigate the effects of recycling oil products tax revenue to the household or industrial sectors by transferring or lowering existing taxes. The results of simulations show that the food tax break renders the best results, because it induces the largest decreases in oil consumption, total energy consumption, and air pollutant emissions, with smaller GDP loss. Furthermore, under this scenario the agriculture and food-processing sectors expand, which can mitigate the negative impacts on the rural population and may possibly improve their income.

Key words

Computable general equilibrium (CGE) model Oil products tax Tax revenue recycling Energy consumption Food tax break 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boyd R, Ibarraran ME (2002) Costs of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol: a developing country perspective. Energy Economics 24:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Garbaccio RF, Ho MS, Jorgenson DW (1999) Controlling carbon emissions in China. Environment and Development Economics 4:493–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Heerden JV, Gerlagh R, Blignaut J, Horridge M, Hess S, Mabugu R, Mabugu M (2006) Searching for triple dividends in South Africa: fighting CO2 pollution and poverty while promoting growth. The Energy Journal 2:113–142Google Scholar
  4. Huang YN, Wang XJ, Zhang W, Zhang TZ (2006) Quantitative analysis on the effects of the implementation of energy-environment taxes in China: an application of CGE model. Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference of Environmental and Resource Economists, July 3–7, 2006, Kyoto, Cited on December 15, 2006
  5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996) Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventory: reference manual, volume 3, Cited on December 15, 2006
  6. Jiang KJ, Hu XL, Zhu SL, Liu Q, Xu Y (2007) Policy design for mid-term and long-term energy tax and carbon tax. International Energy Workshop, June 25–27, 2007, Stanford, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Kainuma M, Matsuoka Y, Morita T (eds) (2003) Climate policy assessment. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 355–356Google Scholar
  8. Kweka J (2004) Tourism and the economy of Tanzania: a CGE analysis. Proceedings of CSAE Conference on Growth, Poverty Reduction and Human Development in Africa, March 21–22, 2004, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Maio L, Stewart F, Hoeven R (1999) Computable General Equilibrium models, adjustment and the poor in Africa. World Development 27:453–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Masui T, Rana A, Matsuoka Y (2002) AIM/Material model. In: Kainuma M, Matsuoka Y, Morita T (eds) Climate policy assessment. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 177–196Google Scholar
  11. Naqvi F (1998) A computable general equilibrium model of energy, economy and equity interactions in Pakistan. Energy Economics 20:347–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Bureau Statistics of China (NBS) (1999) 1997 China input-output table. China Statistics, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  13. NBS (2001) China energy statistics yearbook (1997–1999). China Statistics, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  14. NBS (2003) China statistics yearbook on fixed capital formation in 2003. China Statistics, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  15. NBS (2006) China statistical yearbook 2005. China Statistics, Beijing, Cited on December 15, 2006
  16. Nugent JB, Sarma CVSK (2002) The three E’s—efficiency, equity, and environmental protection—in search of “win-win-win” policies: a CGE analysis of India. Journal of Policy Modeling 24:19–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Ryan R, Miguel CJ, Miller S, Munasinghe M (2005) Computable general equilibrium model analysis of economywide cross effects of social and environmental policies in Chile. Ecological Economics 54:447–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rutherford TF, Paltsev SV (2000) GTAPinGAMS and GTAP-EG: global datasets for economic research and illustrative models. Cited on December 15, 2006
  19. Shoven JB, Whalley J (1984) Applied general-equilibrium models of taxation and international trade: an introduction and survey. Journal of Economic Literature 22:1007–1051Google Scholar
  20. State Environment Protection Administration (SEPA) (1998) Report on the state of the environment in China. Cited on December 15, 2006
  21. Wajsman N (1995) The use of computable general equilibrium models in evaluating environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Management 44:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xie J, Sidney S (1996) Environmental policy analysis: an environmental computable general equilibrium approach for developing countries. Journal of Policy Making 4:453–489Google Scholar
  23. Xu Y (2005) Local air pollutant emission reduction and ancillary carbon benefits of SO2 control policies: application of AIM/CGE model for China. Interim paper, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, JapanGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang ZX (1998a) Macroeconomic effects of CO2 emission limits: a computable general equilibrium analysis for China. Journal of Policy Modeling 2:213–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhang ZX (1998b) The economics of energy policy in China: implications for global climate change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Xu
    • 1
  • Toshihiko Masui
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute for Environmental StudiesIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations