Carbon Tax Revenue Awareness (INFRAS 2015) Study Context and Country

confidence: high · 2 sources

⚠
Working research — not a recommendation.

This page records what the evidence says a policy does, not what anyone should do about it. It has been synthesized from the cited sources but has not been independently reviewed.

What the evidence says

The evidence on this page comes from Switzerland. All of it is reported by one author, Stefano Carattini, in two papers. The awareness figure is a second-hand report of a survey by INFRAS (2015), not a primary source.

Awareness of how carbon tax revenues are used is low. In the INFRAS survey, only a quarter (25%) of the 1,012 respondents were aware of the mode of redistribution. This is a cross-sectional survey, so it describes a level at one point in time. It does not show what produced that level.

Stated preferences about where revenue should go lean toward environmental use. In an analysis of VOX ballot survey data, 56.8% of Swiss voters preferred revenues to go to environmental purposes such as efficiency and renewables subsidies, rather than to general tax reduction. The paper's quoted wording is "about 60%". The VOX finding is associational.

Information changes the stated preferences that the choice experiments measure. Information on the expected environmental effectiveness of carbon taxes decreases demand for environmental earmarking. Making distributional effects salient increases demand for progressive designs, such as social cushioning or lump-sum transfers. The paper reports that showing the distributional properties of lump-sum transfers is enough to make them one of the most preferred designs, which it calls a completely novel result in the literature. Both results are causal, from choice experiments with information treatments. The claims flag one caveat: stated preferences in an experiment may not carry over to actual policy acceptance or real voting.

The claims do not measure whether knowing the revenue use changes support for a carbon tax. They also give no effect sizes for the information treatments. The direction of those effects is well established in these sources, but the magnitude is not.

Where the evidence splits

The VOX survey and the choice experiment disagree on distributional concern and revenue design. In the VOX data, voters voiced concern about distributional effects of energy taxes. They still did not prefer recycling designs that address those concerns. The paper says such concerns bear on accepting a tax at a given rate but "do not call for a diversion of revenues from environmental earmarking". In the choice experiment, making distributional effects salient produced strong demand for progressive designs. The claims point to salience as the difference: the experiment supplied the distributional information, while the survey measured preferences without that treatment. The sources do not test this account directly. The two studies also differ in design, since one is observational and the other is an experiment.

Thresholds and dose-response

No threshold established in the current sources.

Open empirical questions

Findings

Low awareness of revenue redistribution accompanies Swiss carbon tax revenue use

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: highconsensus: thin — one survey, reported second-hand
mechanism
not established; this is a descriptive survey result
effect
25% of 1,012 respondents were aware of the mode of redistribution
conditions / moderators
Switzerland; INFRAS (2015) survey; not established beyond that

A majority of Swiss voters state a preference for environmental use of energy tax revenues

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: highconsensus: thin — one survey analysis
mechanism
not established; this is a stated preference
effect
56.8% preferred environmental earmarking over general tax reduction; the paper's wording is "about 60%"
conditions / moderators
Swiss VOX ballot survey; voters also voiced distributional concern but did not prefer designs that address it

Information on environmental effectiveness decreases demand for environmental earmarking

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: mediumconsensus: thin — one study
mechanism
when expected emissions reductions are made salient, respondents see less need to earmark revenue for further environmental purposes
effect
decrease in demand for earmarking; magnitude not stated in the claims
conditions / moderators
choice experiment with a full-information treatment; external validity to actual policy acceptance is uncertain

Making distributional effects salient increases demand for progressive revenue recycling, including lump-sum transfers

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: mediumconsensus: contested — the VOX survey found no preference for such designs despite stated concern (see "Where the evidence splits")
mechanism
communicating who bears the cost raises stated preference for social cushioning and lump-sum transfer designs
effect
increase in demand for progressive designs; lump-sum transfers become one of the most preferred designs; magnitude not stated in the claims
conditions / moderators
choice experiment with information provision; it is unknown whether the shift would occur in actual voting

Distributional concern shows no measured effect on Swiss voters' preferred revenue use

confidence — direction: highconfidence — magnitude: highconsensus: contested — it conflicts with the choice experiment result on salience
mechanism
per the paper, concern bears on accepting a tax at a given rate, not on where revenue should go
effect
no measured effect of distributional concern on the direction of revenue preference; voters kept preferring environmental earmarking
conditions / moderators
cross-sectional VOX survey, without an information treatment