世界银行-谁来承担拉丁美洲和加勒比国家的燃油税负担_（英）-2025_75页_5mb

Short-Term Welfare and Distributional Effects of Fuel Tax Reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean

Context and Framework

• Focus: Analyzes fuel tax reforms' short-term impacts on household welfare and income distribution in six LAC countries.
• Methodology: Uses the Commitment to Equity (CEQ) approach to assess welfare changes based on household consumption and expenditure data.
• Key Objective: To guide policymakers on designing equitable energy taxation reforms that support climate goals while minimizing socioeconomic disparities.

Key Findings

1. Trade-Offs Between Climate Goals and Equity

• Environmental Benefits: Fuel taxation reduces CO₂ emissions and supports climate change mitigation, potentially lowering household exposure to climate hazards.
• Equity Concerns: Reforms negatively impact household purchasing power due to higher fuel costs. Effects are modest (0.1%-1.2% reduction in per capita income) but disproportionately affect low-income households.
• Public Opposition: Strong resistance exists due to fuel’s integral role in daily life (transport, cooking) and concerns about fiscal revenue use.

2. Distributional Effects Across Households and Fuels

• Progressivity Distribution:

  • Gasoline: Relatively progressive taxes in some countries (reduces inequality in Jamaica, Mexico).
  • LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas): Highly regressive (largest impact on poor households, who use it for cooking).
  • Diesel: Regressive due to indirect effects, as diesel is critical for production and distribution (food, transport).

• Country Variations:

  • Reforms increase income for some (e.g., gasoline in Jamaica), but losses are offset by broader price effects.
  • Increases in black market and informal purchases reduce effective tax burden.

3. Compensatory Measures

• Social Assistance: Direct transfers or top-ups to existing social programs reduced income losses by an average of 40% for lower-income households under certain reform scenarios.

• Challenges Overhead:

  • Marginal effectiveness in offsetting the impact on the middle class and other population groups.
  • Low public trust and weak communication hinder acceptance of compensation schemes, reinforcing opposition to reforms unless linked to broader public-good policies.

4. Policy Recommendations

• Need for Comprehensive Strategies:
  • Revenue recycling through social programs and public services (health, education) to enhance reform acceptance.
  • Key reforms: Moving toward aligned carbon pricing and eliminating fuel subsidies.
  • Promoting alternative low-carbon infrastructure (electricity, public transport) to mitigate regressive impacts and ease transitions.
  • Supporting vulnerable groups with targeted compensation, while ensuring energy policies foster long-term equity and environmental sustainability.

Conclusion

Fuel taxation is central to climate mitigation but must be managed carefully to avoid exacerbating inequality. Success requires balancing environmental goals with fiscal equity, clear revenue use, and public engagement to mitigate opposition and drive behavioral change.