Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Cash transfers for pro-poor carbon taxes in Latin America and the Caribbean

Nature Sustainability volume 2, pages 941–948 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 27 June 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Carbon taxes are advocated as efficient fiscal and environmental policy tools, but they have proven difficult to implement. One reason is that carbon taxes can aggravate poverty by increasing prices of basic goods and services such as food, heating and commuting. Meanwhile, cash transfer programmes have been established as some of the most efficient poverty-reducing policies used in developing countries. We quantify how governments could mitigate negative social consequences of carbon taxes by expanding the beneficiary base or the amounts disbursed with existing cash transfer programmes. We focus on Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that has pioneered cash transfer programmes, aspires to contribute to climate mitigation and faces inequality. We find that 30% of carbon revenues could suffice to compensate poor and vulnerable households on average, leaving 70% to fund other political priorities. We also quantify trade-offs for governments choosing who and how much to compensate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data availability

Households surveys for all countries but Guatemala and Honduras are readily available online (Supplementary Table 1). Input–output tables from the GTAP database are available for a fee from https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/

Code availability

The code used to simulate the impact of different carbon redistribution schemes is available at https://github.com/walshb1/LAC_carbon_taxes_vogtschilb_etal_natsust

Change history

References

  1. McCollum, D. L. et al. Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the sustainable development goals. Nat. Energy3, 589–599 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rao, N. D., Riahi, K. & Grubler, A. Climate impacts of poverty eradication. Nat. Clim. Change4, 749–751 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hubacek, K. et al. in Environmental and Economic Impacts of Decarbonization: Input-Output Studies on the Consequences of the 2015 Paris Agreements (eds Dejuán, O. et al.) chapter 5 (Routledge, 2017).

  4. Jakob, M. et al. Carbon pricing revenues could close infrastructure access gaps. World Dev.84, 254–265 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pachauri, S. et al. Pathways to achieve universal household access to modern energy by 2030. Environ. Res. Lett.8, 024015 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2015); https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators

  7. Assessing Fiscal Space: An Update and Stocktaking (IMF, 2018).

  8. Stiglitz, J. & Stern, N. Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices (Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, 2017).

  9. Coady, D., Parry, I., Sears, L. & Shang, B. How large are global fossil fuel subsidies? World Dev.91, 11–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature562, 519–525 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Parry, I., Veung, C. & Heine, D. How much carbon pricing is in countries’ own interests? The critical role of co-benefits. Clim. Change Econ.6, 1550019 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gillis, J. Forget the carbon tax for now. The New York Times (27 December 2018).

  13. Agren, D. Mexico protests: how gas prices lit the flame under a quietly smoldering rage. The Guardian (9 January 2017).

  14. Dorband, I. I., Jakob, M., Kalkuhl, M. & Steckel, J. C. Poverty and distributional effects of carbon pricing in low- and middle-income countries—a global comparative analysis. World Dev.115, 246–257 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Klenert, D. et al. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Change8, 669–677 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vogt-Schilb, A. & Hallegatte, S. Climate policies and nationally determined contributions: reconciling the needed ambition with the political economy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ.6, e256 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Trebilcock, M. J. Dealing with Losers: The Political Economy of Policy Transitions (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

  18. Arze del Granado, F. J., Coady, D. & Gillingham, R. The unequal benefits of fuel subsidies: a review of evidence for developing countries. World Dev.40, 2234–2248 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coady, D., Parry, I. W. H. & Shang, B. Energy price reform: lessons for policymakers. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy12, 197–219 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feltenstein, A. Subsidy Reforms and Implications for Social Protection: An Analysis of IMF Advice on Food and Fuel Subsidies IEO Background Paper No. BP/17-01/02 (IMF, 2017).

  21. Beaton, C. et al. A Guidebook to Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform for Policy-Makers in Southeast Asia (International Institute for Sustainable Development/Global Subsidies Initiative, 2013); http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_guidebook_exec.pdf

  22. Vagliasindi, M. Implementing Energy Subsidy Reforms: An Overview of the Key Issues Policy Research Working Paper 6122 (World Bank, 2012).

  23. Rentschler, J. & Bazilian, M. Policy monitor—principles for designing effective fossil fuel subsidy reforms. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy11, 138–155 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fay, M. et al. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future (World Bank, 2015).

  25. Skovgaard, J. & van Asselt, H. (eds) The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  26. Bastagli, F. et al. Cash Transfers: What Does the Evidence Say? A Rigorous Review of Programme Impact and of the Role of Design and Implementation Features (ODI, 2016).

  27. Duryea, S. & Robles, M. Family Legacy: Breaking the Mold or Repeating Patterns? (IDB, 2017).

  28. Ibarrarán, P. et al. (eds) How Conditional Cash Transfers Work (IDB, 2017).

  29. Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard Univ. Press, 1977).

  30. Feng, K., Hubacek, K., Liu, Y., Marchán, E. & Vogt-Schilb, A. Managing the distributional effects of energy taxes and subsidy removal in Latin America and the Caribbean. Appl. Energy225, 424–436 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Alvarez, M. Distributional effects of environmental taxation: an approximation with a meta-regression analysis. Econ. Anal. Policy (2018).

  32. Coady, D. P., Flamini, V. & Sears, L. The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies Revisited: Evidence for Developing Countries Working Paper No. 15/250 (IMF, 2015).

  33. Jenkins, J. D. Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: what are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design? Energy Policy69, 467–477 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Carattini, S., Baranzini, A., Thalmann, P., Varone, F. & Vöhringer, F. Green taxes in a post-Paris world: are millions of nays inevitable? Environ. Resour. Econ.68, 97–128 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dresner, S., Dunne, L., Clinch, P. & Beuermann, C. Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: an introduction to the special issue. Energy Policy34, 895–904 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Drews, S. & Bergh, J. C. J. Mvanden What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim. Policy16, 855–876 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kallbekken, S. & Sælen, H. Public acceptance for environmental taxes: self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy39, 2966–2973 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E. & Reilly, J. M. Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: a general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households. Energy Econ.33, S20–S33 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Symons, E., Proops, J. & Gay, P. Carbon taxes, consumer demand and carbon dioxide emissions: a simulation analysis for the UK. Fisc. Stud.15, 19–43 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bento, A. M., Jacobsen, M. R. & Liu, A. A. Environmental policy in the presence of an informal sector. J. Environ. Econ. Manag.90, 61–77 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Goulder, L. H. Climate change policy’s interactions with the tax system. Energy Econ.40, S3–S11 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Metcalf, G. E. Using the tax system to address competition issues with a carbon tax. Natl Tax. J.67, 779 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Williams, R. C. I. I. I., Gordon, H., Burtraw, D., Carbone, J. C. & Morgenstern, R. D. The initial incidence of a carbon tax across income groups. Natl Tax. J.68, 195–214 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hanna, R. & Olken, B. A. Universal basic incomes versus targeted transfers: anti-poverty programs in developing countries. J. Econ. Perspect.32, 201–226 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Economists’ statement on carbon dividends. Wall Street Journal (16 January 2019).

  46. Renner, S. Poverty and distributional effects of a carbon tax in Mexico. Energy Policy112, 98–110 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cerutti, P. et al. Social Assistance and Labor Market Programs in Latin America: Methodology and Key Findings from the Social Protection Database Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper No. 1401 (World Bank, 2014).

  48. Epstein, R. A. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain (Harvard Univ. Press, 1985).

  49. Kaplow, L. Transition policy: a conceptual framework. J. Contemp. Leg. Issues13, 161–209 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hubacek, K., Baiocchi, G., Feng, K. & Patwardhan, A. Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained world. Nat. Commun.8, 912 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Choi, J.-K., Bakshi, B. R., Hubacek, K. & Nader, J. A sequential input–output framework to analyze the economic and environmental implications of energy policies: gas taxes and fuel subsidies. Appl. Energy184, 830–839 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Feng, K. et al. Distributional effects of climate change taxation: the case of the UK. Environ. Sci. Technol.44, 3670–3676 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ogarenko, I. & Hubacek, K. Eliminating indirect energy subsidies in Ukraine: estimation of environmental and socioeconomic effects using input–output modeling. J. Econ. Struct.2, 7 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang, Q., Hubacek, K., Feng, K., Wei, Y.-M. & Liang, Q.-M. Distributional effects of carbon taxation. Appl. Energy184, 1123–1131 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kerkhof, A., Nonhebel, S. & Moll, H. Relating the environmental impact of consumption to household expenditures: an input-output analysis. Ecol. Econ.68, 1160–1170 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wier, M., Birr-Pedersen, K., Jacobsen, H. K. & Klok, J. Are CO2 taxes regressive? Evidence from the danish experience. Ecol. Econ.52, 239–251 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schaffitzel, F., Jakob, M., Soria, R., Vogt-Schilb, A. & Ward, H. Can Government Transfers Make Energy Subsidy Reform Socially Acceptable?: A Case Study on Ecuador Working Paper 01026 (IDB, 2019).

  58. Duarte, R. et al. Modeling the carbon consequences of pro-environmental consumer behavior. Appl. Energy184, 1207–1216 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller, R. E. & Blair, P. D. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

  60. Coady, D., Flamini, V. & Sears, L. The Unequal Benefits of Fuel Subsidies Revisited: Evidence for Developing Countries Working Paper 15/250 (IMF, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Sofia del Risco Bravo. We acknowledge funding support from the Inter-American Development Bank (projects no. RG-T2728 and RG-E1563). K.F. acknowledges funding support from the University of Maryland’s BSOS Dean’s Research Initiative Award. Y.L. acknowledges funding support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no.71974186) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2016YFA0602500). We thank M. L. Oliveri, P. Keefer, the crowd at Bethany Beach and the participants of an IDB seminar of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, World Bank’s International Research Conference on Carbon Pricing 2019, for useful comments and feedback. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Directors or the countries they represent.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, USA

    Adrien Vogt-Schilb, Brian Walsh, Laura Di Capua, Daniela Zuluaga & Marcos Robles

  2. Institute of Blue and Green Development, Shandong University, Weihai, China

    Kuishuang Feng

  3. Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Kuishuang Feng

  4. Institute of Economic Research, Faculty of Economic and Statistical Sciences, National University of Rosario, Rosario, Argentina

    Laura Di Capua

  5. Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Yu Liu

  6. School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Yu Liu

  7. Center for Energy and Environmental Sciences, Energy and Sustainability Research Institute Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Klaus Hubaceck

  8. Department of Environmental Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

    Klaus Hubaceck

  9. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Klaus Hubaceck

Authors
  1. Adrien Vogt-Schilb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kuishuang Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Di Capua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniela Zuluaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marcos Robles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Klaus Hubaceck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.V.-S., B.W. and K.F. designed the research; A.V.-S, Y.L., K.F., L.D.C., D.Z. and M.R. prepared the data; A.V.-S., B.W. and K.F. conducted the analyses; A.V.-S., B.W., K.F., L.D.C., Y.L., D.Z., M.R. and K.H. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuishuang Feng.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Figs. 1–99 and Tables 1–34.

Supplementary Data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vogt-Schilb, A., Walsh, B., Feng, K. et al. Cash transfers for pro-poor carbon taxes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nat Sustain 2, 941–948 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0385-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0385-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing