| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Matti, Simon, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Are fee-and-dividend schemes the savior of environmental taxation? Analyses of how different revenue use alternatives affect public support for Sweden's air passenger tax
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Environmental Science & Policy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1462-9011 .- 1873-6416. ; 132, s. 181-189
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article studies if, how, and why different revenue uses affect public attitudes to environmental taxation. More specifically, using a large-scale (N = 4292) randomized survey experiment with a 2 x 3 factorial design, the article analyses how attitudes towards a proposed increase in the current air passenger tax in Sweden are altered when combining a tax increase with three different suggestions for revenue use. The increasingly popular fee-and-dividend solution, where revenues are distributed back to the public, thus decreasing negative distribu-tive tax effects, is compared with two additional revenue uses: unspecified government spending on welfare services, and re-investment of revenues into aviation biofuels. Our results show that, although some of the commonly used independent variables such as climate concern, personal norms and political-ideological orientation are significant in determining policy attitudes, varying both tax level and revenue use also tangibly affects how a policy proposal is received. Interestingly, however, the fee-and-dividend approach does not yield the most positive policy attitudes. Rather, directing the revenues to fund an increased use of biofuels for aviation is the alternative that most clearly drives positive attitudes to this policy, and is also the alternative that is perceived as the most effective and fair in both the high tax and the low tax alternatives.
|
|
| 5. |
- Persson, Ola, et al.
(författare)
-
Working less by choice: what are the benefits and hardships?
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1548-7733. ; 18:1, s. 81-96
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Working time reduction (WTR) is a policy that could improve quality of life while reducing environmental impacts. However, WTR coupled with a salary reduction may benefit only higher-income earners and increase social inequalities. Against this background, we analyze how the motivations for and the socioecological outcomes from working less vary across different socioeconomic groups. The analysis is based on a survey conducted among municipal employees under full-time contracts who utilized the City of Gothenburg’s “right to part-time” policy. We find that working less improved quality of life not only for higher-income groups but also for lower-income groups through gains in time affluence, energy, health, and time spent on strengthening social ties. However, three negative effects emerged. First, WTR lead to increased work intensification, particularly among higher-income earners. Second, concerns regarding making ends meet and future retirement income were particularly salient issues among lower-income earners. Finally, WTR to cope with unfavorable working conditions was a much more common motivation among manual workers with lower salaries. We conclude that WTR can be a viable option across a broader range of socioeconomic groups than previously assumed but that it is nevertheless important to consider the effects on social inequality when designing WTR policies.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
