Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 119, Issue 1–2, pp 179–217 | Cite as

The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion

  • Philippe Thalmann
Article

Abstract

In September 2000, 4.7 million Swiss citizens were invited tovote on three proposals for taxes on fossil energy. Theydiffered by tax rate and mode of revenue recycling. All threewere rejected, one by only 3.4%. I analyze the votes usingindividual data of a post-referendum survey. Few voters paid attentionto the fine differences between the proposals made.Those who did favored the smaller taxwith revenues earmarked for a wide range of subsidies. The promise of a favorable direct impact on employment made by amini green tax reform was not understood or valued. Citizenswith leftist affinities and better education were morefavorable.

Keywords

Public Finance Direct Impact Good Education Fossil Energy Public Acceptance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aidt, T.S. (1997). On the political economy of green tax reforms. University of Aarhus, Department of Economics Working Paper 1997-20.Google Scholar
  2. Aidt, T.S. (1999). The rise of environmentalism, pollution taxes and trade. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics and Politics Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, J.A. and Petkus, E., Jr. (1994). Toward a stakeholder-based policy process: An application of the social marketing perspective to environmental policy development. Policy Sciences 27: 37–51.Google Scholar
  4. Ballmer-Cao, T.-H., Eggli, C., Konishi, M., Lanszki, M. and Marquis, L. (2000). Analyse de la votation fédérale du 24 septembre 2000. Genève: GfS et Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  5. Baranzini, A., Goldemberg, J. and Speck, S. (2000). A future for carbon taxes. Ecological Economics 32: 395–412.Google Scholar
  6. Barkume, A.J. (1976). Identification of preference for election outcomes from aggregate voting data. Public Choice 27: 41–58.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, G.S. and Mulligan, C.B. (1997). The endogenous determination of time preference. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 729–758.Google Scholar
  8. Beedham, B. (1996). Full democracy. The Economist. S3–S4. London.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J.M. and Tullock, G. (1975). Pulluter's profits and political response: Direct control versus taxes. American Economic Review 65: 139–147.Google Scholar
  10. Daugbjerg, C. and Svensen, G.T. (2001). Green taxation in question: Politics and economic efficiency in environmental regulation. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  11. Deacon, R. and Shapiro, P. (1975). Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. American Economic Review 66: 943–955.Google Scholar
  12. Felder, S. and Schleiniger, R. (2001). Environmental tax reform: Efficiency and political feasibility. Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics. Magdeburg.Google Scholar
  13. Fischel, W.A. (1979). Determinants of voting on environmental quality: A study of a New Hampshire pulp mill referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6: 107–118.Google Scholar
  14. Fort, R. and Bunn, D.N. (1998). Whether one votes and how one votes. Public Choice 95: 51–62.Google Scholar
  15. Fredriksson, P.G. (1998). Environmental policy choice: Pollution abatement subsidies. Resource and Energy Economics 20: 51–63.Google Scholar
  16. Gebhardt, J. (1991). Direkt-demokratische Institutionen und repräsentative Demokratie im Verfassungsstaat. Politik und Zeitgeschichte 23: 16–29.Google Scholar
  17. Goulder, L.H., Parry, I.W.H. and Burtraw, D. (1997). Revenue-raising vs. other approaches to environmental protection: The critical significance of pre-existing tax distortions. Rand Journal of Economics 28: 708–731.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, W.H. (1999). Econometric analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Hahn, R.W. and Stavins, R.N. (1992). Economic incentives for environmental protection: Integrating theory and practice. American Economic Review 82: 464–468.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, B.C. (2001). Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: A cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly 54: 657–671.Google Scholar
  21. Ingelhart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrialized society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kahn, M.E. (2002). Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 45–62.Google Scholar
  23. Kahn, M.E. and Matsusaka, J.G. (1997). Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal of Law and Economics 40: 137–173.Google Scholar
  24. Kanagy, C.L., Humphrey, C.R. and Firebaugh, G. (1994). Surging environmentalism: Changing public opinion or changing publics? Social Science Quarterly 75: 804–819.Google Scholar
  25. Keohane, N.O., Revesz, R.L. and Stavins, R.N. (1998). The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22: 313–367.Google Scholar
  26. Kirchgässner, G. (1997). Environmental policy in Switzerland: Methods, results, problems and challenges. In W. Wasserfallen (Ed.), Economic policy in Switzerland, 184–212. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Kirchgässner, G., Feld, L.P. and Savioz, M.R. (1999). Die direkte Demokratie. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  28. Knoepfel, P. (1997). Switzerland. In H. Weidner (Ed.), National environmental policies. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Kobach, K.W. (1993). The referendum: Direct democracy in Switzerland. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  30. Kriesi, H. (1996). Le clivage linguistique: Problèmes de compréhension entre les communautés linguistiques en Suisse. Berne: Office fédérale de la statistique.Google Scholar
  31. Kriesi, H. (1998). La mise en oeuvre d'une réforme fiscale écologique: Comment peut-elle devenir majoritaire? Réforme Fiscale Écologique, Proceedings of a debate on 5.6.98 in Berne. Berne: Forum pour l'écologie générale de l'Université de Berne.Google Scholar
  32. Kriesi, H. (2002). Individual opinion formation in a direct democratic campaign. British Journal of Political Science 32: 171–185.Google Scholar
  33. Leung, S.F. and Yu, S.T. (1996). On the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics 72: 197–229.Google Scholar
  34. Määttä, K. (2002). The Buchanan-Tullock theorem and environmental tax policy in practice. Paper presented at The 2002 Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice Society in Belgirate, Italy.Google Scholar
  35. Magaddino, J.P., Toma, E.F. and Toma, M. (1980). Proposition-13: A public choice appraisal. Public Finance Quarterly 8: 223–235.Google Scholar
  36. Matsusaka, J.G. (1993). Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions. Public Choice 76: 313–334.Google Scholar
  37. Neufeld, J.L. (1977). Tax rate referenda and property taxpayers revolt. National Tax Journal 30: 441–456.Google Scholar
  38. Noam, E.M. (1982). Demand functions and the valuation of public goods. Public Choice 38: 271–280.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (1996). Economics surveys, Switzerland. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (1998). Environmental performance review. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2001). Environmentally related taxes in OECD countries: Issues and strategies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  42. Pezzey, J.C.V. and Park, A. (1998). Reflections on the double dividend debate: The importance of interest groups and information costs. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 539–555.Google Scholar
  43. Salka, W.M. (2001). Urban-rural conflict over environmental policy in the western United States. American Review of Public Administation 31: 33–48.Google Scholar
  44. Schneider, F. (1997). Einige Bemerkungen zu den Umsetzungsproblemen ökologischorientierter Wirtschaftspolitik aus Sicht der neuen politischen Ökonomie. In T. Slembeck and H. Schmid (Eds.), Finanz-und Wirschaftspolitik in Theorie und Praxis, 468–486. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt.Google Scholar
  45. Schneider, F. and Volkert, J. (1999). No chance for incentive-oriented environmental policies in representative democracies? Ecological Economics 31: 123–138.Google Scholar
  46. SFSO. (2002). Environment Switzerland 2002 — statistics and analyses. Neuchâtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  47. Trechsel, A. and Kriesi, H. (1996). Switzerland — The referendum and initiative as a centerpiece of the political system. In M. Gallagher and P.V. Uleri (Eds.), The referendum experience in Europe, 185–208. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Van de Ven, W.P.M.M. and van Praag, B.M.S. (1981). The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: A probit model with sample selection. Journal of Econometrics 17: 229–252.Google Scholar
  49. Wallart, N. and Bürgenmeier, B. (1996). L'acceptabilité des taxes incitatives en Suisse. Revue Suisse d'Economie Politique et de Statistique 132: 3–30.Google Scholar
  50. Weck-Hannemann, H. (1990). Protectionism in direct democracy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics/Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 146: 389–418.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Thalmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations