Skip to main content
Log in

Nonseparable Utility and the Double Dividend Debate: Reconsidering the Tax-Interaction Effect

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on the use of environmental taxes inthe presence of distortionary (labor) taxes warns thata partial-equilibrium Pigouvian tax analysis is notappropriate because increasing the price of dirtygoods can futher aggravate the prexisting distortions. This argument is most frequently made assuming thatlabor is taxed to meet a fixed revenue requirement.When a dirty good is also taxed, others argue thatthis lowers workers' real wages, causing people toreduce their labor supply below its already suboptimallevel, aggravating labor market distortions. However,most papers ignore the effect that a cleanerenvironment can have on labor supply. That is, mostpast work has assumed that the quality of theenvironment is weakly separable in the utilityfunction. We argue that a cleaner environment canincrease labor supply, at least partially offsettingany incentive for workers to decrease their laborsupply. Further, we show explicitly how relaxing theseparability assumption affects the standardresults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bovenberg, A. L. and R. A. De Mooij (1994), ‘Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation’, American Economic Review 84(4), 1085-1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovenberg, A. L. and L. H. Goulder (1996), ‘Optimal Environmental Taxation in the Presence of Other Taxes: General-Equilibrium Analyses’, American Economic Review 86(4), 985-1000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovenberg, A. L. and F. van der Ploeg (1994), ‘Environmental Policy, Public Finance and the Labour Market in a Second-Best World’, Journal of Public Economics 55(3), 349-390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockery, D. W., C. A. Pope, III, X. Xu, J. D. Spengler, J. H. Ware, M. E. Fay, B. G. Ferris, Jr. and F. E. Speizer (1993), ‘An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities’, New England Journal of Medicine 329(24), 1753-1759.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (1997), The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990 (Draft), Appendix D: Human Health and Welfare Effects of Criteria Pollutants. Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairley, D. (1990), ‘The Relationship of Daily Mortality to Suspended Particulates in Santa Clara County, 1980–1986’, Environmental Health Perspectives 89, 159-168.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzRoy, F. (1996), Environmental Taxes, Non-Separable Externalititeis and Real Wages. Working Paper, University of St. Andrews.

  • Freeman, A. M., III (1993), The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulder, L. H., I. W. H. Parry and D. Burtraw (1996), Revenue-Raising vs. Other Approaches to Environmental Protection: The Critical Significance of Pre-Existing Tax Distortions, RFF Discussion Paper, Vol. 96-24. Washington: Resource for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, A. J. and W. Harrington (1990), ‘Ambient Ozone and Acute Health Effects: Evidence from Daily Data’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maler, K.-G. (1974), Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostro, B. (1994), Estimating the Health Effects of Air Pollutants: A Method with an Application to Jakarta, Rep. No. WPS1301. Washington: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostro, B. D. (1983), ‘The Effects of Air Pollution on Work Loss and Morbidity’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 10, 371-382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, I. W. H. (1995), ‘Pollution Taxes and Revenue Recycling’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, S64-S77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pencavel, J. (1986), ‘Labor Supply of Men: A Survey’, in O. Ashenfelter and R. Layard, eds., Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 1. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, C. A., III, M. J. Thun, M. M. Namboodiri, D. W. Dockery, J. S. Evans, F. E. Speizer and C. W. Heath, Jr. (1995), ‘Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults’, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151, 669-674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R. (1990), ‘Air Pollution Policy’, in P. R. Portney, ed., Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Washington: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R. and J. Mullahy (1986), ‘Urban Air Quality and Acute Respiratory Illness’, Journal of Urban Economics 20, 21-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schöb, R. (1995), Ecological Tax Systems: Environmental Economics and Optimal Taxation. Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starrett, D. A. (1988), Foundations of Public Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starrett, D. A. (1998), Double Dividend: Just Desserts or Pie in the Sky, Working Paper, Department of Economics, Stanford University.

  • World Health Organization (1996), Final Consultation on Updating and Revision of the Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, Rep. No. ICP EHH 018 VD96 2.11. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: WorldHealth Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuidema, T. and A. Nentjes (1997), ‘Health Damage of Air Pollution: An Estimate of a Dose-Response Relationship for the Netherlands’, Environmental and Resource Economics 9, 291-308.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwartz, J., Repetto, R. Nonseparable Utility and the Double Dividend Debate: Reconsidering the Tax-Interaction Effect. Environmental and Resource Economics 15, 149–157 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008314717413

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008314717413

Navigation