concept

lump-sum transfers to households

Also known as: lump-sum transfers to households, equal lump-sum transfers to households

Facts (17)

Sources

Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe link.springer.com Springer 17 facts

claimMale experts are more likely to recommend using carbon pricing revenue for general government spending and equal lump-sum transfers to households, while they are less likely to recommend spending on environmental public goods, green R&D, and international transfers to support climate policy in other countries, according to a linear regression analysis (p < 0.10; p < 0.01 for green R&D).

measurementThe recommendation for 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' as a carbon pricing revenue usage is supported by 42% of experts in North America, compared to only 21% of experts in the rest of the world, according to the study 'Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe'.

measurementIn the survey conducted for 'Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe', the option of 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' is recommended by only 25% of all experts and ranks fourth among all revenue usage options.

claimAcademic expert support for using lump-sum transfers to households as a method for utilizing revenue from carbon pricing is considerably lower than what is reflected in general academic and policy discussions.

measurementRecommendations for using carbon pricing revenue for 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' are less frequent at global average GDP per capita levels, according to the study 'Designing Carbon Pricing Policies Across the Globe'.

measurementAmong experts surveyed regarding the most recommended option for carbon pricing revenue usage, 'transfers to particularly affected households' is the most favored (24%), followed by 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' (15%), 'reduction of distortionary taxes' (15%), and 'green R&D' (11%).

claimExperts' support for 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' as a revenue usage strategy for carbon pricing increases as the GDP per capita of the expert's country increases.

claimRecommending equal lump-sum transfers to households is positively related to recommending more stringent global emission reduction targets.

referenceThe 'Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends' (Wall Street Journal 2019) prominently emphasizes 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' as the primary revenue usage for carbon pricing.

measurement30% of North American experts rank 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' as the most preferred use of carbon pricing revenue, compared to only 2% of Asian experts.

measurementNorth American experts most frequently recommend 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' (30%) as the primary use for carbon pricing revenue, whereas only 2% of Asian experts select this as their most preferred option.

measurementThe revenue usage option of equal lump-sum transfers to households correlates negatively with interventionist options such as spending on environmental public goods, green research and development, and subsidies for renewable energy (at the 5% or 1% significance levels).

claimWhen restricted to selecting only one 'most recommended option' for carbon pricing revenue use, experts rank 'transfers to particularly affected households' first, followed by 'equal lump-sum transfers to households' and 'reduction of distortionary taxes'.

claimExperts who have published in economics journals are more likely to recommend the reduction of distortionary taxes and equal lump-sum transfers to households, but less likely to recommend targeted options like subsidies for renewable energy or spending on environmental public goods, compared to non-economists.

claimExperts with higher numbers of publications and citations are more likely to recommend using carbon pricing revenue for equal lump-sum transfers to households and less likely to recommend spending on environmental public goods or subsidies for renewable energy.

claimExperts who have published on carbon taxes are more likely to recommend spending carbon pricing revenue on environmental public goods and subsidies for renewable energy, and less likely to recommend equal lump-sum transfers to households or transfers to particularly affected firms.

claimExperts tend to favor either equal lump-sum transfers to households or transfers to particularly affected households, as these two revenue usage options are strongly negatively correlated.