Innovation-Augmented Ecological Tax Reform: Theory, Model Simulation and New Policy Implications

  • Bernd Meyer
  • Paul J. J. Welfens
Conference paper


Energy policy is an element of infrastructure policy and thus is important for competitiveness and growth; at the same time it is a crucial element of environmental policy since the generation and use of fossil and nuclear fuels goes along with negative national and international external effects. Following the liberalization initiative, Germany has not chosen to implement the minimum gradual liberalization required by the EU; rather it fully liberalized the electricity market in April 1998 which will lead to falling electricity prices and industry restructuring in a more competitive European market. Since natural gas is an important input — with a competitive edge vis-à-vis alternative inputs — in electricity generation the liberalization of the gas market in the EU initiated by the European Commission will reinforce the liberalization of the energy market. Energy generation and use in turn are key elements for several emissions, most notably CO2 and SO2. These gaseous emissions naturally create transboundary pollution problems; other international aspects of ecological tax reforms concern competitiveness of the tradable goods industry and trade in energy resources and electricity. Moreover, there will be effects on international capital markets to the extent that there will be relocation of energy intensive industries or intensified merger and acquistion activities in the energy sector or in energy-intensive industries facing sharper price and cost competition.


Combustion Manifold Europe Transportation Income 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ADAMS, J. (1990), Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth, in: Journal of Political Economy, 98, p. 673–702Google Scholar
  2. ADDISON, J. and WELFENS, P.J.J., eds. (1998), Labour Markets and Social Security, Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. ALMON, C. (1991): The INFORUM Approach to Interindustry Modelling. Economic Systems Research 3, p. 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AMANO, A. (1998), Climate Change, Response Timing, and Integrated Assessment Modeling, in: Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 1 /1, p. 318Google Scholar
  5. BAYOUMI, T., COE, D.T., HELPMAN, E. (1999), R and D spillovers and global growth, in: Journal of International Economics, 47, p.399 — 428Google Scholar
  6. BÖNTE W. (1998), Wie produktiv sind Investitionen in Forschung und Entwicklung, Diskussionspapier, Institut für Allokation und Wettbewerb, Universität HamburgGoogle Scholar
  7. BRÄNNLUND, R. (1999), Green Tax Reforms: Some Experiences from Sweden, in: SCHLEGELMILCH, K., ed. (1999), Green Budget Reform in Europe, Heidelberg: Springer, p. 67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. COE, D.T.; HELPMAN, E. (1995). International RandD spillovers, in: European Economic Review, 39, p. 859–887Google Scholar
  9. CONRAD, K. (1995), Choosing Emission Taxes under International Price Competition, Fondazione Enrico Mattei, Milano, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  10. EUROSTAT (1999), Electricity Statistics, Theme 8 —01/1999, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  11. GALE, R.; BARG, S. and GILLIES, A., eds. (1995), Green Budget Reform, London: EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  12. GREENPEACE (1997), Energy Subsidies in Europe, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. GRILICHES, Z. (1995), RandD and Productivity: Econometric Results and Measurement Issues, in: STONEMAN, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  14. JUNGMITTAG, A., MEYER-KRAHMER, F., REGER, G. (1999), Globalisation of RandD and Technology Markets — Trends, Motives, Consequences, in: MEYER-KRAHMER (ed.), Globalisation of RandD and Technology Markets — Consequences for National Innovation Policies, Heidelberg/New York, p. 37–77Google Scholar
  15. LOEFFELHOLZ, H.D. VON (1999), Steuerreform: Erfordernisse, Spielräume, Wirkungen, RWI Mitteilungen Vol. 49, p. 161–173Google Scholar
  16. LOSKE, R. (1996), Klimapolitik, Marburg: MetropolisGoogle Scholar
  17. MA, Q. (1997), A Bilateral Trade Modekl for the INFORUM International System, in: TOMASCZEWICZ, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd World INFORUM Conference. LodzGoogle Scholar
  18. MACKSCHEIDT, K. (1996), Die ökologische Steuerreform im Lichte steuerpolitische Ideale, in: KOHN, J. and WELFENS, M. (eds.), Neue Ansätze in der Umweltökonomie, Marburg: Metropolis, p. 109–125Google Scholar
  19. MEYER, B. and EWERHART, G. (1997), Lohnsatz, Produktivität und Beschäftigung. Ergebnisse einer Simulationsstudie mit dem disaggregierten ökonometrischen Modell INFORGE, in: SCHNABL, H. (ed.), Innovation und Arbeit: Fakten- Analyse- Perspektiven. Tübingen: MohrGoogle Scholar
  20. MEYER, B. and EWERHART, G. (1999): INFORGE. Ein disaggregiertes Simulations-und Prognosemodell für Deutschland, in: LORENZ, H.W. and MEYER, B. (eds.), Studien zur Evolutorischen Ökonomik I V. Berlin: Duncker und HumblotGoogle Scholar
  21. MEYER, B., BOCKERMANN, A:, EWERHART, G., LUTZ, C., (1999), Marktkonforme Umweltpolitik. Wirkungen auf Luftschadstoffemissionen, Wachstum und Struktur der Wirtschaft. Heidelberg: PhysicaGoogle Scholar
  22. MEYER-KRAHMER, F. and WESSELS, H. (1989), Intersektorale Verflechtung von Technologiegebern und Technologienehmern. Eine empirische Analyse für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Vol 206 /6, p. 564–582Google Scholar
  23. NYHUS, D. (1991), The INFORUM International System. Economic Systems Research 3, p. 55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NYHUS. D. and WANG, Q:, (1997): Investments and Exports: A Trade Share Perspective. Paper presented at the 5. World INFORUM Conference. BertinoroGoogle Scholar
  25. OATES (1995), Green Taxes: Can We Protect the Environment and Improve the Tax System at the same Time?, in: Southern Economic Journal, 61 (4)Google Scholar
  26. OECD (1997), Environmental and Green Tax Reform, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD (1998), Energy Policies of IEA Countries. Germany 1998 Review, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. PORTER, M.E. and VAN DER LINDE, C. (1995): Towards a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, p. 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ROTHFELS, J. (1998), Umweltschutz und internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit aus Sicht der neuen Außenhandelstheorie, in: HORBACH, J., MEIßNER, T, ROTHFELS, J., HOLST, K. u. VOIGT, P. ( 1998 ), Umweltschutz und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Baden-Baden: Nomos, p. 15–33Google Scholar
  30. ROTHFELS, J. (1999), Umweltpolitik und unternehmerische Anpassung, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  31. RWI (1999), Stellungnahme zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Einstieg in die ökologische Steuerreform, Bundestagsanhörung vom 18.1. 1999, RWI, EssenGoogle Scholar
  32. SANDMO (1975), Optimal Taxation in the presence of Externalities, in: Swedish Journal of Economics, 77 (1)Google Scholar
  33. SCHERER, F. (1982), Inter- Industry Technology Flow and Productivity Growth. Review of Economics and Statistics 64Google Scholar
  34. SCHLEGELMILCH, K., ed. (1999), Green Budget Reform in Europe, Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  35. SCHMIDT, T.F.N. and KOSCHEL, H. (1999), GEM-E3, in: FAHL, U. and LÄGE, E. (eds.), Strukturelle und gesamtwirtschaftliche Auswirkungen des Klimaschutzes: Die nationale Perspektive. Heidelberg: PhysicaGoogle Scholar
  36. VAN DEN BERGH, J.C.J.M. and VAN DER STRAATEN, J. (1994), Toward an Ecological Tax ReformGoogle Scholar
  37. WELFENS, P.J.J. (1998), Beschäftigungsfördernde Steuerreform in Deutschland zum Euro-Start: Für eine wachstumsorientierte Doppelsteuerreform, in: RWI-Mitteilungen 1998, Jg. 49 (3/4), p. 149–160Google Scholar
  38. WELFENS, P.J.J. (1999a), Globalization of the Economy, Unemployment and Innovation, Heidelberg and New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WELFENS, P.J.J. (1999b), Beschäftigungsfördernde Steuerreform in Deutschland zum Euro-Start: Für eine wachstumsorientierte Doppelsteuerreform, RWIMitteilungen, Vol. 49, 149–160, original version published as EIIWAnalysen zur Wirtschaftspolitik No.3 (see, October 7, 1998, University of PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  40. WELFENS, P.J.J., AUDRETSCH, D., ADDISON, J., GRUPP, H. (1998), Technological Competition, Employment and Innovation Policies in OECD Countrys, Heidelberg and New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. WELSCH, H (1999), LEAN, in: FAHL, U. and LÄGE, E. (eds.), Strukturelle und gesamtwirtschaftliche Auswirkungen des Klimaschutzes: Die nationale Perspektive. Heidelberg: PhysicaGoogle Scholar
  42. WUPPERTAL INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY (1998), Energy Pricing Policy: Targets, Possibilities and Impacts, Energy and Research Series ENER102, 2–1998, European Parliament, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Meyer
  • Paul J. J. Welfens

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations