Carbon Pricing and Economic Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Emissions Trading Systems and Carbon Taxes Across Major Economies
炭素価格と経済パフォーマンス：主要経済国における排出量取引制度と炭素税の比較分析 (AI 翻訳)
Sindhu P.J
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
主要47の管轄区域における炭素価格制度（排出量取引と炭素税）の効果を合成コントロール法と差の差推定法で比較分析。排出量取引制度は炭素税よりも大きな排出削減効果（平均8.2%対9.7%）を示すが、価格変動が大きく複雑。炭素税は安定した価格シグナルと高い政府収入を提供。収入還元（配当・減税）は雇用に正の影響を与える。経済成長への悪影響は統計的に有意ではない。
English
This study compares carbon pricing mechanisms (ETS and carbon taxes) across 47 jurisdictions from 2015-2025 using synthetic control and difference-in-differences. ETS achieve larger emission reductions (9.7% vs. 6.4%) but with higher price volatility. Carbon taxes provide stable prices and higher revenue. Revenue recycling through dividends or tax cuts yields employment gains. No significant negative GDP effects.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本は2012年に炭素税を導入し、2023年にGX-ETSを開始した。本論文の収入還元や競争力に関する知見は、日本の政策設計に示唆を与える。特に雇用への正の影響やGDPへの悪影響がない点は、炭素価格導入拡大の根拠となる。
In the global GX context
As more jurisdictions adopt or strengthen carbon pricing, this paper provides robust causal evidence that pricing does not harm GDP. The comparison of ETS vs. carbon tax and revenue recycling mechanisms is directly relevant to policymakers designing effective carbon pricing frameworks under the Paris Agreement.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides rigorous causal evidence on carbon pricing effectiveness and economic impacts, useful for further meta-analysis or policy design studies.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams can use the findings to anticipate regulatory trends and understand the economic implications of carbon pricing.
🏛政策担当者:Offers comparative evidence to guide choice between ETS and carbon tax, and on revenue recycling design to maximize emissions cuts while minimizing economic costs.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study conducts a comprehensive comparative analysis of carbon pricing mechanisms across 47 jurisdictions implementing either emissions trading systems or carbon taxes during the period 2015 to 2025. Employing synthetic control methods and difference in differences estimation, we assess the effectiveness of these instruments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while evaluating their economic consequences for output, employment, and competitiveness. Our findings indicate that carbon pricing at current levels achieves meaningful emissions reductions averaging 8.2% relative to counterfactual trajectories, with no statistically significant negative effects on aggregate GDP growth. Emissions trading systems demonstrate greater emissions reduction effectiveness (9.7% versus 6.4% for carbon taxes) but exhibit higher price volatility and administrative complexity. Carbon taxes provide more stable price signals and raise greater government revenue per ton of emissions reduced. Revenue recycling mechanisms significantly moderate economic impacts, with jurisdictions returning carbon revenues through dividend payments or tax reductions experiencing employment gains of 0.4% compared to those using revenues for general spending. The results support the economic viability of carbon pricing as a climate policy instrument while highlighting the importance of complementary policies addressing competitiveness concerns and distributional impacts.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.63090/jeir/3107.9482.0014first seen 2026-05-05 22:39:04
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。