Does the Double Dividend of Environmental Tax Really Play a Role in OECD Countries? A Study Based on the Panel ARDL Model

Pinglin He, Xiaonan Zou, Ya Qiao, Lu Chen, Xin Wang, Xiaoyan Luo, Jing Ning

Ekoloji, 2019, Issue 107, Pages: 49-62, Article No: e107035


Download Full Text (PDF)


Based on the Panel ARDL model, this paper reports the economic and environmental performance of environmental tax levied in 36 countries of OECD from 1994 to 2014. According to the double dividend theory of environmental tax, the following six variables are selected to establish the Panel ARDL model: environmental tax, GDP, unemployment rate, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen oxides emissions and sulfur oxides emissions. After a series of econometric methods such as unit root test, cointegration test and Granger causality test, the conclusion is as followed. It is found that there is a long-term cointegration relationship between the environmental tax and the other five variables. We can also conclude that the environmental tax significantly reduces nitrogen oxides emissions in the long run, while it also significantly reduces sulfur oxides emissions in the short run, then from this perspective, the green dividend effect is obvious. But in fact, we cannot prove that environmental taxes have a significant positive effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, we have confirmed that for 36 countries of OECD, environmental taxes can achieve the blue dividend of economic growth, but there is no evidence that environmental taxes have a positive effect on reducing unemployment.


panel-ARDL, environmental tax, double dividend, OECD countries


  • Amundsen ES (1999) Environmental taxes on exhaustible resources. European Journal of Political Economy, 15(2): 311-329.
  • Arbolino R, Romano O (2017) A Methodological Approach for Assessing Policies: The Case of the Environmental Tax Reform at European Level. Procedia Economics and Finance, 17: 202-210.
  • Barker T, Baylis S, Madsen P (1993) A UK carbon/energy tax: The macroeconomics effects. Energy Policy, 21(3): 296-308.
  • Bosquet B (2000) Environmental tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics, 34(1): 19-32.
  • Bossier F, Bréchet T (1995) A fiscal reform for increasing employment and mitigating CO2, emissions in Europe. Energy Policy, 23(9): 789-798.
  • Bovenberg AL, De Mooij RA (1994) Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. American Economic Review, 84(4): 1085-1089.
  • Carraro C, Galeotti M, Gallo M (1996) Environmental taxation and unemployment: Some evidence on the ‘double dividend hypothesis’ in Europe. Journal of Public Economics, 62(1–2): 141-181.
  • Ciaschini M, Pretaroli R, Severini F, Socci C (2012) Regional double dividend from environmental tax reform: an application for the Italian economy. Research in Economics, 66(3): 273-283.
  • Ekins P, Summerton P, Thoung C, Lee D (2011) A major environmental tax reform for the UK: results for the economy, employment and the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 50(3): 447-474.
  • Fraser I, Waschik R (2013) The double dividend hypothesis in a CGE model: specific factors and the carbon base. Energy Economics, 39: 283-295.
  • Gemechu ED, Butnar I, Llop M, Castells F (2012) Environmental tax on products and services based on their carbon footprint: a case study of the pulp and paper sector. Energy Policy, 50: 336-344.
  • Glomm G, Kawaguchi D, Sepulveda F (2008) Green taxes and double dividends in a dynamic economy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 30(1): 19-32.
  • Hu X, Liu Y, Yang L, Shi Q, Zhang W, Zhong C (2018) SO2 emission reduction decomposition of environmental tax based on different consumption tax refunds. Journal of Cleaner Production, 186: 997-1010.
  • Jaume FG (2018) Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(1): 194-223
  • Kao C (1999) Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1): 1-44.
  • Lin B, Li X (2011) The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 39(9): 5137-5146.
  • Mardones C, Baeza N (2018) Economic and environmental effects of a CO2 tax in Latin American countries. Energy Policy, 114: 262-273.
  • Mohseni M, Jouzaryan F (2016) Examining the Effects of Inflation and Unemployment on Economic Growth in Iran (1996-2012). Procedia Economics and Finance, 36: 381-389.
  • Morley B, Abdullah S (2014) Environmental Taxes and Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Causality Tests. Energy Economics, 42(1): 27-33.
  • Nerudová D, Dobranschi M (2014) Double Dividend Hypothesis: Can it Occur when Tackling Carbon Emissions? Procedia Economics and Finance, 12: 472-479.
  • Orlov A, Grethe H, Mcdonald S (2013) Carbon taxation in Russia: Prospects for a double dividend and improved energy efficiency. Energy Economics, 37(1): 128-140.
  • Oueslati W (2014) Environmental tax reform: Short-term versus long-term macroeconomic effects. Journal of Macroeconomics, 40: 190-201.
  • Patuelli R, Nijkamp P, Pels E (2005) Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assessment. Ecological Economics, 55(4): 564-583.
  • Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(4): 653-670.
  • Pedroni P (2004) Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3): 597-625.
  • Radulescu M, Sinisi CI (2017) Environmental Tax Policy in Romania in the Context of the EU: Double Dividend Theory. Sustainaability, 1-20.
  • Rapanos VT, Polemis ML (2005) Energy demand and environmental taxes: the case of Greece. Energy Policy, 33(14): 1781-1788.
  • Rivera GL, Reynès F, Cortes II, Bellocq FX, Grazi F (2016) Towards a low carbon growth in Mexico: is a double dividend possible? A dynamic general equilibrium assessment. Energy Policy, 96: 314-327.
  • Takedaa S (2007) The double dividend from carbon regulations in Japan. Journal of the Japanese & International Economies, 21(3): 336-364.
  • Wang B, Liu L, Huang G, Li W, Xie Y (2018) Effects of carbon and environmental tax on power mix planning - A case study of Hebei Province, China. Energy, 143: 645-657.