Symphony or Solo: Does Convergence Exist in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Theory and Hypothesis
4. Sequential Panel Selection Method
5. Data
6. Empirical Results
6.1. Environmental Tax
6.2. Energy Tax
6.3. Transport Tax
6.4. Robustness Test
6.5. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Filipović, S.; Lior, N.; Radovanović, M. The green deal–just transition and sustainable development goals Nexus. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 168, 112759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, J.; Johansson, B. Adoption, implementation and design of carbon pricing policy instruments. Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 40, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolde-Rufael, Y.; Mulat-Weldemeskel, E. Effectiveness of environmental taxes and environmental stringent policies on CO2 emissions: The European experience. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 5211–5239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Z.; Wu, Y.; Gu, Y.; Liu, T.; Wang, W.; Liu, X. An overview on implementation of environmental tax and related economic instruments in typical countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norouzi, N.; Fani, M.; Talebi, S. Green tax as a path to greener economy: A game theory approach on energy and final goods in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 156, 111968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rafique, M.Z.; Fareed, Z.; Ferraz, D.; Ikram, M.; Huang, S. Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: An empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy 2022, 238, 121753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, J.; Wang, L.; Belgacem, S.B.; Pawar, P.S.; Najam, H.; Abbas, J. Investment in renewable energy and electricity output: Role of green finance, environmental tax, and geopolitical risk: Empirical evidence from China. Energy 2023, 269, 126683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dogan, E.; Hodžić, S.; Šikić, T.F. Do energy and environmental taxes stimulate or inhibit renewable energy deployment in the European Union? Renew. Energy 2023, 202, 1138–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmood, N.; Zhao, Y.; Lou, Q.; Geng, J. Role of environmental regulations and eco-innovation in energy structure transition for green growth: Evidence from OECD. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 183, 121890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bor, Y.J.; Huang, Y. Energy taxation and the double dividend effect in Taiwan’s energy conservation policy—An empirical study using a computable general equilibrium model. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2086–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degirmenci, T.; Aydin, M. The effects of environmental taxes on environmental pollution and unemployment: A panel co-integration analysis on the validity of double dividend hypothesis for selected African countries. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2023, 28, 2231–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neves, S.A.; Marques, A.C.; Patrício, M. Determinants of CO2 emissions in European Union countries: Does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution? Econ. Anal. Policy 2020, 68, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dogan, B.; Chu, L.K.; Ghosh, S.; Truong, H.H.D.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. How environmental taxes and carbon emissions are related in the G7 economies? Renew. Energy 2022, 187, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alola, A.A.; Nwulu, N. Do energy-pollution-resource-transport taxes yield double dividend for Nordic economies? Energy 2022, 254, 124275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yfanti, S.; Karanasos, M.; Zopounidis, C.; Christopoulos, A. Corporate credit risk counter-cyclical interdependence: A systematic analysis of cross-border and cross-sector correlation dynamics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2023, 304, 813–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouzzine, Y.D.; Lueg, R. The contagion effect of environmental violations: The case of Dieselgate in Germany. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3187–3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, C.W.; Liu, F.; Stefea, P.; Umar, M. Does technology innovation help to achieve carbon neutrality? Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 78, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abate, A.G.; Riccardi, R.; Ruiz, C. Contracts in electricity markets under EU ETS: A stochastic programming approach. Energy Econ. 2021, 99, 105309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enders, W.; Lee, J. A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2012, 74, 574–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.Q.; Su, C.W.; Lobonţ, O.R.; Li, H.; Nicoleta-Claudia, M. Is China’s carbon trading market efficient? Evidence from emissions trading scheme pilots. Energy 2022, 245, 123240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barro, R.J.; Sala-i-Martin, X. Convergence. J. Political Econ. 1992, 100, 223–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borsi, M.T.; Metiu, N. The evolution of economic convergence in the European Union. Empir. Econ. 2015, 48, 657–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.Z.; Liu, G.; Tao, R.; Lobont, O.R. Do Health Expenditures Converge Among ASEAN Countries? Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 699821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrerias, M.J. CO2 weighted convergence across the EU-25 countries (1920–2007). Appl. Energy 2012, 92, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marrero, Á.S.; Marrero, G.A.; González, R.M.; Rodríguez-López, J. Convergence in road transport CO2 emissions in Europe. Energy Econ. 2021, 99, 105322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.Y.; Lee, C.C. Convergence of the world’s energy use. Resour. Energy Econ. 2020, 62, 101199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero-Ávila, D.; Omay, T. Convergence of per capita energy consumption around the world: New evidence from nonlinear panel unit root tests. Energy Econ. 2022, 111, 106062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayraktar, Y.; Koc, K.; Toprak, M.; Ozyılmaz, A.; Olgun, M.F.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Soylu, O.B. Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among BRICS-T countries: Evidence from Fourier unit root test. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 63022–63035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilanci, V.; Gorus, M.S.; Solarin, S.A. Convergence in per capita carbon footprint and ecological footprint for G7 countries: Evidence from panel Fourier threshold unit root test. Energy Environ. 2022, 33, 527–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.G.; Wu, L.; Li, A. Research on the efficiency of carbon trading market in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.L.; Zhang, Z.; Li, X.; Chang, T. Does the carbon price in Chinese seven carbon markets converge or not? —Based on the Fourier quantile unit root test. Energy Rep. 2019, 5, 1638–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado, F.J.; Freire-González, J.; Presno, M.J. Environmental taxation in the European Union: Are there common trends? Econ. Anal. Policy 2002, 73, 670–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Famulska, T.; Kaczmarzyk, J.; Grzaba-Włoszek, M. Environmental Taxes in the Member States of the European Union—Trends in Energy Taxes. Energies 2022, 15, 8718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Depren, Ö.; Kartal, M.T.; Ayhan, F.; Depren, S.K. Heterogeneous impact of environmental taxes on environmental quality: Tax domain based evidence from the nordic countries by nonparametric quantile approaches. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 329, 117031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Afshan, S.; Yaqoob, T. Unravelling the efficacy of green innovation and taxation in promoting environmental quality: A dual-model assessment of testing the LCC theory in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 416, 137850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brock, W.A.; Taylor, M.S. The green Solow model. J. Econ. Growth 2010, 15, 127–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.R.; Tan, X.; Managi, S.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Club convergence in energy efficiency of Belt and Road Initiative countries: The role of China’s outward foreign direct investment. Energy Policy 2022, 168, 113139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, J.; Akram, V.; Burhan, M. Does economic complexity lead to global carbon emissions convergence? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 45646–45655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Menegaki, A.N. Convergence of clean energy consumption—Panel unit root test with sharp and smooth breaks. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 18790–18803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radulescu, M.; Sinisi, C.I.; Popescu, C.; Iacob, S.E.; Popescu, L. Environmental tax policy in Romania in the context of the EU: Double Dividend Theory. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filipiak, B.Z.; Wyszkowska, D. Determinants of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in European Union Countries. Energies 2022, 15, 9561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falkner, R. The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. Int. Aff. 2016, 92, 1107–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esen, Ö.; Yıldırım, D.Ç.; Yıldırım, S. Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes–Ecological balance nexus. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 91, 106662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cojocaru, T.M.; Ionescu, G.H.; Firoiu, D.; Cismaș, L.M.; Oțil, M.D.; Toma, O. Reducing inequalities within and among EU Countries—Assessing the achievement of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development targets (SDG 10). Sustainability 2002, 14, 7706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugerman, Y.; Sade, O.; Shayo, M. Long term savings decisions: Financial reform, peer effects, and ethnicity. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2014, 106, 106–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Székely, I.P.; Kuenzel, R. Convergence of the EU Member States in Central-Eastern and South Eastern Europe (EU11): A Framework for Convergence Inside a Close Regional Cooperation. In Does EU Membership Facilitate Convergence? The Experience of the EU’s Eastern Enlargement-Volume I: Overall Trends and Country Experiences; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 27–90. [Google Scholar]
- Raghoo, P.; Shah, K.U. A global empirical analysis on the diffusion innovation of carbon pricing policies. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Yin, Q.; Yuan, B.; Dong, Z.; Wei, W. Does the environmental tax influence the siting of foreign-invested manufacturing enterprises? Evidence from China. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2023, 67, 2837–2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J. Local-neighborhood effects of environmental regulations on green technology innovation in manufacturing: Green credit-based regulation. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1072180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annicchiarico, B.; Carattini, S.; Fischer, C.; Heutel, G. Business Cycles and Environmental Policy: Literature Review and Policy Implications; National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Domenech, T.; Bahn-Walkowiak, B. Transition towards a resource efficient circular economy in Europe: Policy lessons from the EU and the member states. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 155, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chortareas, G.E.; Kapetanios, G.; Shin, Y. Nonlinear mean reversion in real exchange rates. Econ. Lett. 2002, 77, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chortareas, G.; Kapetanios, G. Getting PPP right: Identifying mean-reverting real exchange rates in panels. J. Bank. Financ. 2009, 33, 390–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ucar, N.; Omay, T. Testing for unit root in nonlinear heterogeneous panels. Econ. Lett. 2009, 104, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapetanios, G.; Shin, Y.; Snell, A. Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. J. Econom. 2003, 112, 359–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Im, K.S.; Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econom. 2003, 115, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perron, P. The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1989, 57, 1361–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallant, A.R. On the bias in flexible functional forms and an essentially unbiased form: The Fourier flexible form. J. Econom. 1981, 15, 211–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, R.; Enders, W.; Hurn, S. A general test for time dependence in parameters. J. Appl. Econom. 2004, 19, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascalau, R. Unit root tests with smooth breaks: An application to the Nelson–Plosser data set. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2010, 17, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.Z.; Su, C.W.; Moldovan, N.C.; Umar, M. Energy consumption within policy uncertainty: Considering the climate and economic factors. Renew. Energy 2023, 208, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, A.; Lin, C.F.; Chu, C.S.J. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J. Econom. 2002, 108, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maddala, G.S.; Wu, S. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1999, 61, 631–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, I. Unit root tests for panel data. J. Int. Money Financ. 2001, 20, 249–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayne, Q.; Katsanidou, A. Subnational economic conditions and the changing geography of mass Euroscepticism: A longitudinal analysis. Eur. J. Political Res. 2023, 62, 742–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poncin, S. Energy Policies for Eco-Friendly Households in Luxembourg: A Study Based on the LuxHEI Model. Env. Model Assess 2021, 26, 37–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kranzl, L.; Brakhage, A.; Gürtler, P.; Pett, J.; Ragwitz, M.; Stadler, M. Integrating Policies for Renewables and Energy Efficiency: Comparing Results from Germany, Luxembourg and Northern Ireland. Na 2007. Available online: https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/publica/354754 (accessed on 3 June 2024).
- Miceikiene, A.; Čiulevičienė, V.; Rauluskeviciene, J.; Štreimikienė, D. Assessment of the effect of environmental taxes on environmental protection. Ekon. Časopis 2018, 66, 286–308. [Google Scholar]
- Herrigel, G. Globalization and the German industrial production model. J. Labour Mark. Res. 2015, 48, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekins, P.; Speck, S. (Eds.) Environmental tax reform (ETR): A Policy for Green Growth; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Andretta, A.; D’Addato, F.; Serrano-Bernardo, F.; Zamorano, M.; Bonoli, A. Environmental taxes to promote the eu circular economy’s strategy: Spain vs. Italy. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 2307–2311. [Google Scholar]
- Vampa, D. COVID-19 and territorial policy dynamics in Western Europe: Comparing France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Publius J. Fed. 2021, 51, 601–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, M.; Oueslati, W.; Rousselière, D. Environmental taxes, reforms and economic growth: An empirical analysis of panel data. Econ. Syst. 2020, 44, 100806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gago, A.; Labandeira, X.; Picos, F.; Rodríguez, M. Specific and general taxation of tourism activities. Evidence from Spain. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millock, K.; Nauges, C.; Sterner, T. Environmental taxes: A comparison of French and Swedish experience from taxes on industrial air pollution. CESifo DICE Rep. 2004, 2, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
- Cremer, H.; Gahvari, F.; Ladoux, N. Environmental taxes with heterogeneous consumers: An application to energy consumption in France. J. Public Econ. 2003, 87, 2791–2815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiroleu-Assouline, M.; Fodha, M. From regressive pollution taxes to progressive environmental tax reforms. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2014, 69, 126–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenstock, M. Environmental Taxation within the European Union. Cyprus Econ. Policy Rev. 2014, 8, 113–123. [Google Scholar]
- Zachariadis, T. A proposed green tax reform for Cyprus and its co-benefits for urban sustainability. Environ. Fisc. Chall. Cities Transp. 2019, 21, 91. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, B.; Sharif, A.; Bashir, M.; Bashir, M.F. The dynamic influence of energy consumption, fiscal policy and green innovation on environmental degradation in BRICST economies. Energy Policy 2023, 183, 113823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhelyazkova, A.; Thomann, E.; Ruffing, E.; Princen, S. Differentiated policy implementation in the European Union. West Eur. Politics 2024, 47, 439–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hearn, A.X.; Castaño-Rosa, R. Towards a just energy transition, barriers and opportunities for positive energy district creation in Spain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amores, A.F.; Basso, H.S.; Bischl, J.S.; De Agostini, P.; Poli, S.D.; Dicarlo, E.; Flevotomou, M.; Freier, M.; Maier, S.; García-Miralles, E.; et al. Inflation, Fiscal Policy and Inequality. ECB Occasional Paper No. 2023/330. 2023. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4604418 (accessed on 25 March 2024).
- Symons, E.J.; Speck, S.; Proops, J.L.R. The distributional effects of carbon and energy taxes: The cases of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and UK. Eur. Environ. 2002, 12, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beuermann, C.; Santarius, T. Ecological tax reform in Germany: Handling two hot potatoes at the same time. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 917–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deroubaix, J.F.; Lévèque, F. The rise and fall of French Ecological Tax Reform: Social acceptability versus political feasibility in the energy tax implementation process. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 940–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bureau, B. Distributional effects of a carbon tax on car fuels in France. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, N.; Mostofi, H.; Dienel, H.L. Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.; Satrovic, E. How do transportation-based environmental taxation and globalization contribute to ecological sustainability? Ecol. Inform. 2023, 74, 102009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, G.; Behrendt, H.; Maconi, L.; Shirvani, T.; Teytelboym, A. Part I: Externalities and economic policies in road transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 2010, 28, 2–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monti, M. A new strategy for the single market. Report to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso. 10 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Van Dender, K. Taxing Vehicles, Fuels, and Road Use: Opportunities for Improving Transport Tax Practice 2019. Available online: https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Taxing-vehicles-fuels-and-road-use-Opportunities-for-improving-transport-tax-practice.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2024).
- Hussain, Z.; Khan, M.K.; Shaheen, W.A. Effect of economic development, income inequality, transportation, and environmental expenditures on transport emissions: Evidence from OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 56642–56657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umar, M.; Ji, X.; Kirikkaleli, D.; Alola, A.A. The imperativeness of environmental quality in the United States transportation sector amidst biomass-fossil energy consumption and growth. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayan, P.K.; Popp, S. A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time. J. Appl. Stat. 2010, 37, 1425–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvie, C.; Pahlavani, M.; Saleh, A.S. Identifying structural breaks in the Lebanese economy 1970-2003: An application of the Zivot and Andrews test. Middle East Bus. Econ. Rev. 2006, 18, 18–33. [Google Scholar]
- Andrei, J.; Mieila, M.; Popescu, G.H.; Nica, E.; Cristina, M. The impact and determinants of environmental taxation on economic growth communities in Romania. Energies 2016, 9, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorsey-Palmateer, R.; Niu, B. The effect of carbon taxation on cross-border competition and energy efficiency investments. Energy Econ. 2020, 85, 104602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karmaker, S.C.; Hosan, S.; Chapman, A.J.; Saha, B.B. The role of environmental taxes on technological innovation. Energy 2021, 232, 121052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nippa, M.; Patnaik, S.; Taussig, M. MNE responses to carbon pricing regulations: Theory and evidence. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2021, 52, 904–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voigt, C. How a ‘Global Pact for the Environment’could add value to international environmental law. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2019, 28, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khaddage-Soboh, N.; Safi, A.; Rasheed, M.F.; Hasnaoui, A. Examining the role of natural resource rent, environmental regulations, and environmental taxes in sustainable development: Evidence from G-7 economies. Resour. Policy 2023, 86, 104071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
(a) Environmental Tax | |||||||
Sequence | Mean | Max. | Min. | Std. Dev. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Jarque–Bera |
Austria | 2.486 | 2.831 | 2.053 | 0.190 | −0.394 | 3.258 | 0.745 |
Belgium | 2.367 | 2.832 | 2.006 | 0.243 | 0.486 | 2.016 | 2.073 |
Bulgaria | 2.571 | 3.283 | 0.814 | 0.628 | −1.643 | 4.774 | 15.113 |
Croatia | 3.545 | 4.135 | 2.494 | 0.499 | −0.617 | 2.245 | 2.267 |
Cyprus | 2.812 | 3.628 | 2.242 | 0.355 | 0.381 | 2.687 | 0.736 |
Czech | 2.530 | 2.739 | 2.398 | 0.086 | 0.318 | 2.664 | 0.561 |
Denmark | 4.392 | 5.359 | 3.165 | 0.610 | −0.213 | 2.109 | 1.057 |
Estonia | 2.361 | 3.733 | 0.872 | 0.654 | −0.123 | 2.708 | 0.157 |
Finland | 2.935 | 3.246 | 2.567 | 0.173 | −0.205 | 2.558 | 0.395 |
France | 2.356 | 2.556 | 2.145 | 0.133 | 0.041 | 1.687 | 1.875 |
Germany | 2.159 | 2.633 | 1.621 | 0.266 | −0.302 | 2.364 | 0.834 |
Greece | 2.895 | 4.045 | 1.914 | 0.738 | 0.145 | 1.469 | 2.630 |
Hungary | 2.791 | 3.353 | 2.365 | 0.214 | 0.292 | 3.697 | 0.898 |
Ireland | 2.322 | 2.987 | 1.205 | 0.474 | −0.698 | 2.959 | 2.116 |
Italy | 3.170 | 3.597 | 2.581 | 0.299 | −0.205 | 1.735 | 1.917 |
Latvia | 2.763 | 3.751 | 0.984 | 0.717 | −0.522 | 2.642 | 1.323 |
Lithuania | 2.188 | 3.029 | 1.636 | 0.422 | 0.648 | 2.033 | 2.834 |
Luxembourg | 2.378 | 3.000 | 1.409 | 0.483 | −0.497 | 1.919 | 2.336 |
Malta | 3.006 | 3.849 | 2.273 | 0.410 | 0.234 | 2.291 | 0.781 |
Netherlands | 3.493 | 3.689 | 3.265 | 0.108 | −0.181 | 2.470 | 0.445 |
Poland | 2.364 | 2.686 | 1.725 | 0.272 | −1.093 | 3.054 | 5.184 * |
Portugal | 2.721 | 3.393 | 2.197 | 0.364 | 0.434 | 2.064 | 1.765 |
Romania | 2.103 | 3.420 | 1.592 | 0.417 | 1.398 | 5.089 | 13.210 *** |
Slovakia | 2.170 | 2.636 | 1.901 | 0.203 | 0.872 | 2.689 | 3.398 |
Slovenia | 3.854 | 5.296 | 2.942 | 0.643 | 0.208 | 2.121 | 1.026 |
Spain | 1.893 | 2.250 | 1.580 | 0.189 | 0.000 | 2.154 | 0.776 |
Sweden | 2.484 | 2.917 | 2.062 | 0.252 | −0.375 | 1.853 | 2.037 |
(b) Energy Tax | |||||||
Sequence | Mean | Max. | Min. | Std. Dev. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Jarque–Bera |
Austria | 1.541 | 1.787 | 1.212 | 0.127 | −0.517 | 3.598 | 1.545 |
Belgium | 1.376 | 1.568 | 1.211 | 0.105 | 0.165 | 2.069 | 1.055 |
Bulgaria | 2.284 | 2.847 | 0.719 | 0.531 | −1.783 | 5.311 | 19.565 *** |
Croatia | 2.804 | 3.327 | 2.327 | 0.342 | 0.084 | 1.486 | 2.514 |
Cyprus | 1.562 | 2.396 | 0.461 | 0.688 | −0.558 | 1.827 | 2.844 |
Czech | 2.064 | 2.300 | 1.911 | 0.099 | 0.608 | 2.703 | 1.696 |
Denmark | 2.349 | 2.861 | 1.653 | 0.338 | −0.130 | 2.417 | 0.441 |
Estonia | 1.930 | 2.946 | 0.542 | 0.586 | −0.423 | 2.486 | 1.061 |
Finland | 1.928 | 2.245 | 1.587 | 0.157 | −0.285 | 2.727 | 0.433 |
France | 1.692 | 1.949 | 1.422 | 0.164 | 0.044 | 1.778 | 1.625 |
Germany | 1.806 | 2.282 | 1.313 | 0.243 | −0.155 | 2.463 | 0.417 |
Greece | 2.087 | 3.216 | 1.115 | 0.757 | 0.126 | 1.417 | 2.782 |
Hungary | 2.228 | 2.954 | 1.731 | 0.286 | 0.900 | 3.528 | 3.816 |
Ireland | 1.311 | 1.679 | 0.736 | 0.256 | −0.417 | 2.527 | 0.998 |
Italy | 2.538 | 3.007 | 1.970 | 0.291 | −0.127 | 1.821 | 1.577 |
Latvia | 2.271 | 3.091 | 0.932 | 0.597 | −0.261 | 2.019 | 1.336 |
Lithuania | 1.672 | 2.138 | 1.102 | 0.241 | −0.731 | 3.775 | 2.976 |
Luxembourg | 2.226 | 2.866 | 1.279 | 0.488 | −0.428 | 1.832 | 2.272 |
Malta | 1.307 | 1.685 | 0.785 | 0.201 | −0.872 | 4.103 | 4.612 |
Netherlands | 1.813 | 2.143 | 1.511 | 0.149 | 0.250 | 2.695 | 0.372 |
Poland | 1.991 | 2.305 | 1.205 | 0.329 | −1.265 | 3.294 | 7.032 ** |
Portugal | 1.930 | 2.494 | 1.540 | 0.244 | 0.834 | 3.013 | 3.015 |
Romania | 1.915 | 3.291 | 1.346 | 0.434 | 1.429 | 5.178 | 13.999 *** |
Slovakia | 1.750 | 2.193 | 1.493 | 0.199 | 0.706 | 2.467 | 2.465 |
Slovenia | 3.181 | 4.593 | 2.273 | 0.656 | 1.192 | 2.044 | 1.150 |
Spain | 1.527 | 1.800 | 1.290 | 0.154 | 0.017 | 2.029 | 1.022 |
Sweden | 2.033 | 2.479 | 1.565 | 0.277 | −0.332 | 1.814 | 2.002 |
(c) Transport Tax | |||||||
Sequence | Mean | Max. | Min. | Std. Dev. | Skewness | Kurtosis | Jarque–Bera |
Austria | 0.918 | 1.055 | 0.729 | 0.084 | −0.492 | 2.858 | 1.071 |
Belgium | 0.760 | 0.891 | 0.641 | 0.076 | 0.070 | 1.851 | 1.453 |
Bulgaria | 0.222 | 0.320 | 0.017 | 0.082 | −0.823 | 2.763 | 2.993 |
Croatia | 0.717 | 1.072 | 0.128 | 0.303 | −0.742 | 2.185 | 3.108 |
Cyprus | 1.244 | 2.124 | 0.505 | 0.558 | −0.013 | 1.410 | 2.739 |
Czech | 0.353 | 0.443 | 0.248 | 0.069 | −0.200 | 1.604 | 2.283 |
Denmark | 1.770 | 2.278 | 1.344 | 0.314 | 0.246 | 1.541 | 2.569 |
Estonia | 0.106 | 0.246 | 0.048 | 0.067 | 0.891 | 2.008 | 4.502 |
Finland | 0.955 | 1.257 | 0.712 | 0.119 | 0.590 | 3.569 | 1.863 |
France | 0.289 | 0.347 | 0.193 | 0.046 | −0.735 | 2.711 | 2.435 |
Germany | 0.342 | 0.386 | 0.292 | 0.026 | 0.005 | 2.203 | 0.688 |
Greece | 0.806 | 0.919 | 0.679 | 0.063 | −0.281 | 2.641 | 0.482 |
Hungary | 0.325 | 0.617 | 0.071 | 0.173 | 0.003 | 1.717 | 1.784 |
Ireland | 0.993 | 1.375 | 0.465 | 0.264 | −0.322 | 2.058 | 1.412 |
Italy | 0.561 | 0.618 | 0.476 | 0.039 | −0.533 | 2.779 | 1.377 |
Latvia | 0.322 | 0.528 | 0.022 | 0.165 | −0.604 | 2.338 | 2.056 |
Lithuania | 0.343 | 0.825 | 0.043 | 0.324 | 0.385 | 1.242 | 3.990 |
Luxembourg | 0.145 | 0.206 | 0.121 | 0.022 | 1.335 | 4.017 | 8.847 ** |
Malta | 1.574 | 2.338 | 0.937 | 0.475 | 0.170 | 1.572 | 2.335 |
Netherlands | 1.148 | 1.363 | 0.948 | 0.116 | −0.051 | 2.039 | 1.011 |
Poland | 0.219 | 0.338 | 0.146 | 0.038 | 0.877 | 5.369 | 9.413 *** |
Portugal | 0.776 | 1.118 | 0.482 | 0.183 | 0.193 | 1.856 | 1.579 |
Romania | 0.159 | 0.343 | 0.049 | 0.107 | 0.265 | 1.758 | 1.974 |
Slovakia | 0.201 | 0.247 | 0.172 | 0.022 | 0.585 | 2.147 | 2.274 |
Slovenia | 0.352 | 0.472 | 0.166 | 0.080 | −1.199 | 3.846 | 7.005 ** |
Spain | 0.328 | 0.440 | 0.230 | 0.074 | −0.027 | 1.298 | 3.138 |
Sweden | 0.387 | 0.490 | 0.305 | 0.062 | −0.097 | 1.470 | 2.577 |
Environmental Tax | Energy Tax | Transport Tax | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Type of Test | Statistic | p-Value | Statistic | p-Value | Statistic | p-Value |
LLC | −0.647 | 0.258 | −1.046 | 0.147 | −1.295 * | 0.097 |
IPS | −0.414 | 0.339 | −0.509 | 0.305 | −0.129 | 0.448 |
Fisher–ADF | 58.662 | 0.308 | 61.722 | 0.219 | 55.487 | 0.418 |
Fisher–PP | 67.268 | 0.106 | 69.042 * | 0.082 | 48.150 | 0.698 |
(a) | |||||
Sequence | OU Statistic | p-Value | Min KSS | k | Series |
1 | −3.475 *** | 0.000 | −4.972 | 3 | Romania |
2 | −3.405 *** | 0.000 | −4.434 | 3 | Estonia |
3 | −3.340 *** | 0.000 | −4.336 | 3 | Bulgaria |
4 | −3.260 *** | 0.000 | −4.220 | 3 | Sweden |
5 | −3.243 *** | 0.000 | −4.145 | 3 | Malta |
6 | −3.209 *** | 0.000 | −3.580 | 3 | Czech |
7 | −3.132 *** | 0.000 | −3.516 | 3 | Finland |
8 | −3.092 *** | 0.000 | −3.280 | 3 | Netherlands |
9 | −3.025 *** | 0.000 | −3.148 | 3 | Denmark |
10 | −2.990 *** | 0.000 | −2.960 | 3 | Hungary |
11 | −2.963 *** | 0.000 | −2.948 | 3 | Belgium |
12 | −2.888 *** | 0.000 | −2.911 | 3 | Greece |
13 | −2.833 *** | 0.002 | −2.214 | 3 | Portugal |
14 | −2.790 *** | 0.002 | −2.207 | 3 | Lithuania |
15 | −2.770 *** | 0.002 | −2.097 | 3 | Latvia |
16 | −2.703 *** | 0.001 | −1.994 | 3 | Poland |
17 | −2.786 *** | 0.002 | −1.888 | 3 | Austria |
18 | −2.813 *** | 0.003 | −1.881 | 3 | Slovenia |
19 | −2.547 ** | 0.023 | −1.799 | 3 | Italy |
20 | −2.484 ** | 0.024 | −1.779 | 3 | Croatia |
21 | −2.245 * | 0.065 | −1.689 | 3 | Slovakia |
22 | −2.206 * | 0.066 | −1.609 | 3 | Ireland |
23 | −2.061 | 0.144 | −1.562 | 3 | Luxembourg |
24 | −2.039 | 0.275 | −1.540 | 3 | Germany |
25 | −2.252 | 0.391 | −1.522 | 3 | Spain |
26 | −2.310 | 0.247 | −1.518 | 3 | France |
27 | −1.812 | 0.332 | −1.436 | 3 | Cyprus |
(b) | |||||
Sequence | OU Statistic | p-Value | Min KSS | k | Series |
1 | −3.579 *** | 0.000 | −5.020 | 3 | Romania |
2 | −3.503 *** | 0.000 | −4.937 | 3 | Bulgaria |
3 | −3.442 *** | 0.000 | −4.653 | 3 | Lithuania |
4 | −3.383 *** | 0.000 | −4.225 | 3 | Sweden |
5 | −3.371 *** | 0.000 | −4.112 | 3 | Malta |
6 | −3.264 *** | 0.000 | −3.611 | 3 | Bulgaria |
7 | −3.220 *** | 0.000 | −3.526 | 3 | Estonia |
8 | −3.159 *** | 0.000 | −3.191 | 3 | Netherlands |
9 | −3.063 *** | 0.000 | −3.157 | 3 | Latvia |
10 | −2.990 *** | 0.000 | −3.088 | 3 | Greece |
11 | −2.935 *** | 0.001 | −2.279 | 3 | Portugal |
12 | −2.980 *** | 0.000 | −2.230 | 3 | Denmark |
13 | −3.020 *** | 0.000 | −2.220 | 3 | Slovakia |
14 | −2.995 *** | 0.001 | −2.184 | 3 | Poland |
15 | −2.992 *** | 0.001 | −2.152 | 3 | Austria |
16 | −3.069 *** | 0.002 | −2.114 | 3 | Hungary |
17 | −3.018 *** | 0.003 | −1.888 | 3 | Ireland |
18 | −3.022 *** | 0.002 | −1.836 | 3 | Italy |
19 | −2.996 *** | 0.001 | −1.799 | 3 | Czech |
20 | −2.852 *** | 0.006 | −1.670 | 3 | Slovenia |
21 | −2.599 ** | 0.021 | −1.667 | 3 | Finland |
22 | −2.296 * | 0.060 | −1.619 | 3 | Cyprus |
23 | −2.178 | 0.150 | −1.587 | 3 | Croatia |
24 | −2.295 * | 0.083 | −1.567 | 3 | Luxembourg |
25 | −1.970 | 0.387 | −1.415 | 3 | Spain |
26 | −1.835 | 0.272 | −1.312 | 3 | Germany |
27 | −2.319 | 0.317 | −1.136 | 3 | France |
(c) | |||||
Sequence | OU Statistic | p-Value | Min KSS | k | Series |
1 | −3.383 *** | 0.000 | −4.461 | 3 | Germany |
2 | −3.287 *** | 0.000 | −3.935 | 3 | Ireland |
3 | −3.266 *** | 0.000 | −3.587 | 3 | Belgium |
4 | −3.166 *** | 0.000 | −3.062 | 3 | Netherlands |
5 | −3.128 *** | 0.000 | −3.040 | 3 | Spain |
6 | −3.075 *** | 0.000 | −3.030 | 3 | Poland |
7 | −3.009 *** | 0.000 | −2.926 | 3 | Slovenia |
8 | −3.006 *** | 0.001 | −2.519 | 3 | Finland |
9 | −3.021 *** | 0.001 | −2.404 | 3 | Greece |
10 | −2.950 *** | 0.000 | −2.380 | 3 | Czech |
11 | −2.886 *** | 0.002 | −2.242 | 3 | Italy |
12 | −2.820 *** | 0.005 | −2.130 | 3 | Bulgaria |
13 | −2.786 *** | 0.009 | −2.076 | 3 | Estonia |
14 | −2.705 ** | 0.017 | −1.995 | 3 | Lithuania |
15 | −2.688 ** | 0.012 | −1.986 | 3 | Croatia |
16 | −2.761 ** | 0.011 | −1.947 | 3 | Austria |
17 | −2.707 ** | 0.043 | −1.916 | 3 | Denmark |
18 | −2.776 ** | 0.039 | −1.874 | 3 | Sweden |
19 | −2.866 ** | 0.027 | −1.837 | 3 | Slovakia |
20 | −2.902 ** | 0.044 | −1.818 | 3 | Portugal |
21 | −3.129 ** | 0.013 | −1.734 | 3 | Luxembourg |
22 | −3.182 ** | 0.023 | −1.636 | 3 | Romania |
23 | −3.158 * | 0.051 | −1.552 | 3 | Latvia |
24 | −3.423 ** | 0.050 | −1.303 | 3 | France |
25 | −3.679 ** | 0.019 | −1.285 | 3 | Malta |
26 | −3.917 ** | 0.032 | −1.141 | 3 | Hungary |
27 | −4.640 ** | 0.021 | −1.019 | 3 | Cyprus |
Sequence | (1) | (2) | (3) | Sequence | (1) | (2) | (3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Austria | 0.001 *** | 0.061 * | 0.022 ** | Italy | 0.007 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.043 ** |
Belgium | 0.002 *** | 0.047 ** | 0.037 ** | Latvia | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.022 ** |
Bulgaria | 0.032 ** | 0.011 ** | 0.005 *** | Lithuania | 0.000 *** | 0.011 ** | 0.000 *** |
Croatia | 0.011** | 0.087 * | 0.001 *** | Luxembourg | 0.110 | 0.072 * | 0.000 *** |
Cyprus | 0.001 *** | 0.006 *** | 0.004 *** | Malta | 0.003 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.020 ** |
Czech | 0.001 *** | 0.013 ** | 0.081 * | Netherlands | 0.012 ** | 0.015 ** | 0.002 *** |
Denmark | 0.049 ** | 0.034 ** | 0.028 ** | Poland | 0.004 *** | 0.077 * | 0.095 * |
Estonia | 0.169 | 0.008 *** | 0.000 *** | Portugal | 0.020 ** | 0.022 ** | 0.015 ** |
Finland | 0.008 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.014 ** | Romania | 0.061 * | 0.021 ** | 0.000 *** |
France | 0.311 | 0.431 | 0.000 *** | Slovakia | 0.046 ** | 0.041 * | 0.006 *** |
Germany | 0.186 | 0.112 | 0.000 *** | Slovenia | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** |
Greece | 0.000 *** | 0.000 ** | 0.045 ** | Spain | 0.231 | 0.105 | 0.000 *** |
Hungary | 0.055 * | 0.070 * | 0.000 *** | Sweden | 0.038 ** | 0.035 ** | 0.002 *** |
Ireland | 0.002 *** | 0.019 ** | 0.013 ** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Z.; Sun, Z.; Wang, K.; Lobonț, O.-R. Symphony or Solo: Does Convergence Exist in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries? Sustainability 2024, 16, 7678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177678
Li Z, Sun Z, Wang K, Lobonț O-R. Symphony or Solo: Does Convergence Exist in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries? Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177678
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Zhengzheng, Zhongyang Sun, Kaihua Wang, and Oana-Ramona Lobonț. 2024. "Symphony or Solo: Does Convergence Exist in Environmental Taxation among EU Countries?" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177678