Chapter 14 - The Distributional
Effects of Low Carbon Policies inJapan and South Korea
Unnada Chewpreecha ・Tae-Yeoun Lee

1

目次• 動機・研究目的• 先行研究及び主な分析内容• 主な分析結果と結論

2

動機・研究目的

3

研究目的• 炭素税の使途– 家計への還元– 環境対策– 経済への影響を小さく、社会問題の歪みを改善• 社会保障雇用者負担の削減財源• 低所得者の所得税の引き下げ財源• 年金保険料の負担軽減財源• 炭素税：所得格差への影響？
4

結論
• 目的
– 炭素税のリサイクル：逆進性があるかどうか？所得格差を考慮した税収還元の効果は？
– Triple dividend？：CO2、GDP、所得格差を是正？

• 結果– 日・韓、Benefit還元ケース、一括還元の両ケース：
CO2削減、GDPや実質所得増加– 所得分配指数（GINI）：小さくなる– 所得格差縮小効果：一括還元の効果＜benefit支出を増やす還元5社会問題
• 経済格差– 所得格差→炭素税の導入：低所得世帯への負担が増加（逆進性）– エネルギー貧困？
• 炭素税の導入→エネルギー価格の増加→低所得：冷暖房やエネルギーへのアクセスが困難• 太陽光発電、省エネ器機への買い替えでCO2削減可能。But,低所得世帯：初期費用の負担が大6

所得格差1
Percentage point changes in the Gini coefficient of householdmarket and disposable incomes between 2007 and 2011
1010
Market income inequality (↗)
Disposable income inequality

8866

4422

00-2-2-4-4

Source: OECD Income Distribution Database (via www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm)

7

unit of 1unit of 3unit of 4

Consumption expentitures

Expenditures

IncomeConsumption expentitures

Expenditures

2013

IncomeIncomeunit of 22010

Consumption expentitures

2005

Expenditures

2000

Expenditures

IncomeConsumption expentitures

Expenditures

IncomeTen thousand
JPY
1009080706050403020
100

Consumption expentitures

Monthly income and expenditure ofworkers’ households in Japan

Quintile

Source: Portal site of Official Statistics of Japan: Family Income and Expenditure Survey (http://www.e-stat.go.jp/)

8

2003

2005

IncomeTen thousand
KRW

Expenditure

Monthly income and expenditure inKorea
2010

2013

Consumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

Consumption expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

IncomeConsumption expenditure

Expenditure

Income

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
households households households households households households households households households households
unit of 1

unit of 2

unit of 3

unit of 4

Source: Statistics Korea (http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1L9H006&conn_path=I3)

Quintile

9

The share of utility costs ofcomputation expenditure in Japan
2000

2005

2010

2013

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
%

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
unit of 1

unit of 2

unit of 3

unit of 4

Quintile

10

The share of utility costs ofcomputation expenditure in Korea
2003

2005

2010

2013

20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
% 10.0

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
Workers'
Other
households households households households households households households households households households
unit of 1

unit of 2

unit of 3

unit of 4Quintile11

先行研究および分析内容

12

先行研究：逆進性• Speck (1999)、 Tiezzi (2005) 、 Callan et al.
(2009) 、 Heerden et al. (2006) and Bureau(2011)– 逆進性：認められる– 税収の還元によって改善• Fujikawa and Watanabe (2004)、 Shimoda andWatanabe (2006)– 低所得世帯への影響が大きい→逆進性あり
13

分析内容
• E3MEモデルを用いて、炭素税の税収を教育投資に還元した場合（人的資本投資）の効果を分析• E3MEモデル：– Global macro-econometric E3 (EnergyEnvironment-Economy) model– マクロ計量モデル– Cambridge Econometrics 開発– www.e3me.com
14所得分配への影響分析
1.

所得構成

𝑺𝑬𝑹𝑰𝒊𝒋= 𝑺𝑹𝑾𝑪𝒊𝒋 × 𝑹𝑾𝑺𝒋 + 𝟎. 𝟑 × 𝑺𝑹𝑩𝑪𝒊𝒋 × 𝑹𝑩𝑬𝑵𝒋 + 𝟎. 𝟕 × 𝑺𝑹𝑷𝑪𝒊𝒋 × 𝑹𝑩𝑬𝑵𝒋 + 𝑺𝑹𝑹𝑪𝒊𝒋
× 𝑹𝑹𝑰𝒋 − 𝑺𝑹𝑻𝑪𝒊𝒋 × 𝑹𝑫𝑻𝑿𝒋 − 𝑺𝑹𝑻𝑪𝒊𝒋 × 𝑹𝑬𝑬𝑺𝒋
Where𝑆𝐸𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑗
𝑆𝑅𝑊𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑅𝑊𝑆𝑖𝑗𝑆𝑅𝐵𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑅𝐵𝐸𝑁𝑗𝑆𝑅𝑃𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑆𝑅𝑅𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑅𝑅𝐼𝑗
𝑆𝑅𝑇𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑅𝐷𝑇𝑋𝑗
𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑗

is average disposable income per year in current price for socioeconomic group i in region j
is share of income from wage for socioeconomic group i in region j
is an endogenous E3ME variable for total wage and salaries in region j
is share of income from benefits for socioeconomic group i in region j
is an endogenous E3ME variable for total benefit payments in region j
is share of income from pensions for socioeconomic group i in region j
is share of income from other income for socioeconomic group i in region j
is an endogenous E3ME variable for residual incomes in region j
is share tax payment in income for socioeconomic group i in region j
is an endogenous E3ME variable for total direct tax revenues in region j
is an endogenous E3ME variable for total employees’ social security contribution revenues in region j15

つづき• エネルギー価格への影響

𝑃𝑆𝐸𝑖𝑗 =

(𝐵𝑆𝐸𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑘 × 𝑉𝐶𝑅𝑘𝑗 )(𝐵𝑆𝐸𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑘 × 𝐶𝑅𝑘𝑗 )Where𝑃𝑆𝐸𝑖𝑗
is average price deflator for socioeconomic group i in region j
𝐵𝑆𝐸𝐶𝑖𝑗𝑘 is product k share in total consumption by socioeconomic group i in region j
𝑉𝐶𝑅𝑘𝑗 is an endogenous E3ME variable for current price spending by product k in region j
𝑉𝐶𝑅𝑘𝑗 is an endogenous E3ME variable for constant price spending by product k inregion j16

実質所得効果
𝑆𝐸𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑗𝑆𝑅𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑗 =𝑃𝑆𝐸𝑖𝑗
Where𝑆𝑅𝑅𝐼𝑖𝑗nj

is average real disposable income per year for socioeconomic group i in regio

17

10章のシナリオと所得別影響• CH. 10と同じ削減目標– 炭素税：両国の政府目標を達成する(N)• 日本(J)：2020年に2005年比3.8%削減• 韓国(K)：2020年にベースラインレベルより30%削減– 炭素税：同一炭素税（$80/tCO2 (80)）導入• シナリオ：– No revenue recycling (N): JNN, J80N, KNN, K80N
– Consumption tax (C): JNC, J80C, KNC, K80C
– Income tax (I)– Labour tax (L)18

Carbon Tax Impact on Real Disposable Income
2020 (% differences from baseline)

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometrics

19

Japan ETR Impact on Real Income
2020 (% differences from baseline)

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometrics

20

Korea ETR Impact on Real Income
2020 (% differences from baseline)

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometrics

21所得格差を考慮した税収還元• 炭素税：両国の政府目標を達成する(N)– 日本(J)：2020年に2005年比3.8%削減– 韓国(K)：2020年にベースラインレベルより30%削減• シナリオ– Benefit payment (B)： ？？？
– Lump sum payment (P)：？？？
22

主な分析結果と結論

23

所得分配を考慮した還元ケース：
経済への影響from baseline (%)
RGDP Real GDP
RCO2 CO2 emission
REMP Employment
CRConsumption
RSK Investment
RSX Export
RSM ImportGovernment
RSG
consumption

20202030
20202030
JNB
JNP
JNBJNP
KNB
KNP
KNB
KNP
3.19
3.37
1.85
2.68
5.52
3.21
1.90
1.48
-16.16 -16.02 -37.44 -37.88 -29.45 -30.96 -39.24 -39.93
0.62
0.77
0.55
0.83
0.97
1.84 -1.50
0.15
3.73
4.09
0.10
1.10 10.04
6.39
5.71
3.85
2.74
2.31
0.67
1.53
5.90
1.25
2.72
1.58
0.77
0.59
0.11
0.42 -0.09 -0.14
0.21
0.10
0.05 -0.33 -5.03 -4.47
1.28
0.03
2.19
0.93
0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

RWS

Nominal wage andsalaries

6.62

3.82

1.765.61

17.76

1.68

14.06

4.19

RTCA

Carbon Tax Rate(USD/tCO2)

387.3

387.3

458.4

458.4

540.9

540.9

640.3

640.3

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometricsより筆者作成

24

Japan Alternative ETR: Impact on Real
Income 2020

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometrics

25

Korea Alternative ETR: Impact on Real
Income 2020

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometrics

26

ETR Impacts on GDP and GINI Index
Summary (2020)
JapanGDP

GINI

GDP% difference percentage point % difference
from baseline
difference
from baseline

Korea
GINIpercentage
pointdifferenceJNN-1.25

0.16-2.410.12

KNN

JNC

3.93

0.16

3.850.05

KNC

JNI

3.37

0.35

3.21-0.11

KNI

JNL

-0.59

0.13

-2.01

0.13

KNL

JNB

3.19

0.03

5.52-0.26

KNB

JNP

3.37

0.10

3.210.10

KNP

Source: E3ME, Cambridge Econometrics
27

政策含意
• 所得分配を考慮した税収還元– 消費税減免の後で、高いGDP成長– 実質所得：Benefit、一括税ともに増加→消費税や所得税減税も増加。But, 所得の高いグループほど高くなる→格差拡大。
– 所得格差指数（GINI）： 日本ではBenefitケース、韓国では所得税減税ケースで最も小さい※所得格差を全て是正できないが、一括還元よりbenefit支出を増やす還元で、所得格差を縮小可能→所得配分への影響を考慮した税収還元策が必要28結論• 目的– 炭素税のリサイクル：逆進性があるかどうか？所得格差を考慮した税収還元の効果は？
– Triple dividend？：CO2、GDP、所得格差を是正？

• 結果– 日・韓、Benefit還元ケース、一括還元の両ケース：
CO2削減、GDPや実質所得増加– 所得分配指数（GINI）：小さくなる– 所得格差縮小効果：一括還元の効果＜benefit支出を増やす還元
29

文献
•••••
••••
•••
•

Bureau. B. (2011), “Distributional effects of a carbon tax on car fuels in France”, Energy Economics, 33, 121-130.
Ekins, P, H Pollitt, J Barton and D Blobel (2011), ‘The Implications for Households of Environmental Tax Reform(ETR) in Europe’, Ecological Economics, Volume 70, Issue 12, pp2472-2485, Elsevier.
Callan, T.. Lyons S., Scott S., Tol R. and Verde S. (2009), “The distributional implications of a carbon tax in Ireland”,
Energy Policy, 37, 407-412.
Fujikawa, K. and Watanabe T. (2004), “
藤川清史・渡邉隆俊「温暖化対策税の所得階層別・地域別負担」，環境経済・政策学会編『環境税』東洋経済新報社，pp.93-106, 2004年12月.
Heerden, J., Gerlagh R., Blignaut J., Horridge M., Mabugu S. H. and Mabugu M. (2006), “Searching for Triple
Dividends in South Africa: Fighting CO₂ pollution and poverty while promoting growth”, The Energy Journal, 27(2), 113-141.
Shimoda, M. and Watanabe T. (2006), “Re-examination of the Scheduled Carbon Tax on the Basis of IO Analysis : A
Quantitative Analysis on Household Burden by Income Class and by Region”, The Shogaku Kenkyu, The business
review of Aichi Gakuin University, 46(3), 151-166.
Silber, J. (1989) “Factor Components, Population Subgroups and the Computation of the Gini Index of Inequality”,
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 (1), 107-115.
Speck, S. (1999), “Energy and carbon taxes and their distributional implications”, Energy Policy, 27, 659-667.
Tiezzi, S. (2005), “The welfare effects and the distributive impact of carbon taxation on Italian households”, Energy
Policy, 33, 1597-1612.
OECD Income Distribution Database: www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm
Portal site of Official Statistics of Japan: Family Income and Expenditure Survey、http://www.e-stat.go.jp/Statistics Korea: http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1L9H006&conn_path=I330