Analysis of the Fee-to-Tax Reform on Water Resources in China

被引:11
|
作者
Chen, Zi-Rui [1 ]
Yuan, Yuan [2 ]
Xiao, Xu [3 ]
机构
[1] South China Normal Univ, Sch Marxism, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
[2] South China Normal Univ, Sch Math Sci, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
[3] Beihang Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
fee-to-tax reform; policy effect; asymmetric duopoly; water resource tax; water consumption; AD-VALOREM TAXES; UNIT TAXES; COMPETITION; TAXATION; QUALITY; SUBSIDY; IMPACT; PRICE;
D O I
10.3389/fenrg.2021.752592
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
The Resource Tax Law was officially implemented on September 1, 2020, in China. This law presents the "Fee-to-Tax" reform of water resources. This article compares the effects of the "Fee-to-Tax" reform under asymmetric duopoly conditions with perfect information. The mechanisms of the two policies are different when all firms simultaneously respond to water resources: the water resource fee affects output by reducing market size, while the water resource tax reduces output by amplifying the weighted cost difference effects between companies. Water resource taxes work better than fees for eliminating backward production capacity. A comparison of the situation when companies respond sequentially is also carried out. When a low-cost firm is in the leading position, the collection of fees actually reduces the output difference, whereas the tax improves it. When a high-cost firm acts as a leader, the effects depend on the cost difference. When the cost difference between firms is small, the first-move advantage of high-cost firms dominates the cost advantages of low-cost firms. Therefore, a higher tax rate yields a smaller output difference. When cost differences are relatively larger, the cost advantage of low-cost firms dominates the first-move advantage of high-cost firms. As the operational cost for reducing water consumption increases, the reduced water consumption first increases and then decreases.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Agricultural tax reform, capital investment, and structural transformation in China
    Li, Rui
    Yang, Huiting
    Zhang, Jun
    STRUCTURAL CHANGE AND ECONOMIC DYNAMICS, 2024, 71 : 509 - 522
  • [22] RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TAX SYSTEM REFORM OF UKRAINE
    Prokopenko, N.
    Gudz, O.
    Kreidych, I
    Golovko, M.
    Kazak, O.
    FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY-PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE, 2021, 2 (37): : 396 - 405
  • [23] Numerical simulation on property tax reform: evidence from China
    Wang, Hui
    Wang, Yanyi
    Zhang, Shunming
    APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2019, 51 (20) : 2172 - 2194
  • [24] Analysis of agriculture water pricing reform in a water-deficit area of Northwest China
    Qu, Yongyu
    Kang, Jian
    Lin, Xichen
    Ni, Hongzhen
    Jiang, Yunzhong
    Chen, Genfa
    WATER POLICY, 2022, 24 (10) : 1570 - 1589
  • [25] Rural tax reform and the extractive capacity of local state in China
    Liu, Mingxing
    Xu, Zhigang
    Su, Fubing
    Tao, Ran
    CHINA ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2012, 23 (01) : 190 - 203
  • [26] The impact of tax enforcement on corporate energy efficiency: Evidence from a tax collection reform in China
    Xing, Qiuhang
    Li, Mengzhe
    Xu, Gaoshuang
    CHINA ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2024, 87
  • [27] Do gains in political representation sweeten tax reform in China? It depends on who you ask
    Kao, Jay C.
    Lu, Xiaobo
    Queralt, Didac
    POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2024, 12 (01) : 146 - 165
  • [28] Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2019 cigarette excise tax reform in the Philippines
    Go Cheng, Kent Jason
    Garcia Estrada, Miguel Antonio
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2021, 145
  • [29] The effects of tax and fee reduction policy on mitigating shock of the COVID-19 epidemic in China
    Xu, Jin
    Wei, Weixian
    APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2021, 53 (46) : 5303 - 5318
  • [30] Water consumption analysis of olefins production from alternative resources in China
    Xiang, Dong
    Gao, Li
    Liu, Xia
    Guo, Chao
    Yang, Siyu
    Qian, Yu
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 139 : 146 - 156