The Predicament of Carbon Pricing Under Developmental States
発展国家における炭素価格の苦境 (AI 翻訳)
Kuei-Tien Chou, Yi-jyun Shih, Hwa-Meei Liou
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
台湾と韓国における炭素価格メカニズムを比較分析し、発展国家の制度がその設計と実効性に与える影響を検証。韓国の排出権取引制度は排出削減に寄与しておらず、台湾では2023年に法律が成立したものの、炭素賦課金は低率で2026年に延期された。産業政策優先が炭素価格の効果を制限している。
English
This comparative study examines carbon pricing mechanisms in Taiwan and South Korea, finding that developmental-state institutions with strong state-industry ties and carbon-intensive dominance constrain policy effectiveness. South Korea's ETS has not curbed emissions, and Taiwan’s carbon fee was postponed to 2026 with a low price. Industrial policy priorities limit carbon pricing's transformative potential.
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
日本も2023年にGX推進法で炭素賦課金導入を検討中。台湾・韓国の事例は、産業界との関係が強い制度下で炭素価格が実効性を損なうリスクを示唆し、日本の政策設計への示唆となる。
In the global GX context
As Japan considers its own carbon pricing under the GX Promotion Act, this study offers a cautionary tale from two East Asian developmental states where strong industrial linkages and conservative design dilute effectiveness. Valuable for global policymakers assessing carbon pricing in export-oriented manufacturing economies.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a comparative institutional analysis of carbon pricing in two developmental states, useful for understanding how political economy mediates policy outcomes.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the risk that carbon pricing may be weakened by industrial policy pressures; corporate sustainability teams should monitor such dynamics when planning internal carbon costs.
🏛政策担当者:Offers lessons for designing carbon pricing regimes that resist capture by carbon-intensive industries, emphasizing the need for complementary regulatory measures.
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study analyzes carbon-pricing mechanisms in Taiwan and Republic of Korea—two high-carbon manufacturing economies embedded in global supply chains—to examine how developmental-state institutions shape the design and effectiveness of carbon-pricing policies and whether these mechanisms effectively contribute to emissions reduction. Using a comparative case study design, policy document analysis, and quantitative emission and survey data, this study compares the evolution and outcomes of carbon pricing in both economies. While carbon pricing is recognized as a key climate mitigation tool, its effectiveness varies across institutional settings. Through a comparative analysis, this study shows that developmental-state structures—characterized by strong state–industry linkages, the dominance of carbon-intensive industries, and conservative policy design—constrain its effectiveness. Republic of Korea’s Target Management System and Emissions Trading Scheme have not curbed emissions growth, while Taiwan began debating an energy tax as early as 2006 but only institutionalized carbon pricing after the 2023 Climate Change Response Act. The carbon fee, initially planned for 2024, was postponed to 2026 with a low and lenient price. The findings suggest that carbon pricing is mediated by industrial policy priorities, limiting its capacity to drive low-carbon transitions.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157574first seen 2026-07-29 05:14:50
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
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。