| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
121744
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The long-standing severe power shortage in China has provoked much debate on whether China should further promote market-oriented electricity reform. The present paper addresses this issue by analyzing the impacts of deregulation of the electricity generation sector and retailing activities on other sectors, the macroeconomy and electricity users. A counterfactual scenario analysis is used based on a simplified computable general equilibrium framework. We find that deregulation can significantly improve the efficiency of electricity production, increase employment and enhance household welfare. These nontrivial findings can help to resolve many controversies about governmental intervention during China's economic transition. Our findings have two implications relating to policy feasibility and applicability; that is, competition in the electricity retail market should be phased in, and the necessary arrangements for unemployment in incumbent firms should be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
164721
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Under pressures related to economic growth and environmental protection, China is facing an increasingly severe “environment–health–poverty” trap risk. Fuel taxation is generally considered an effective policy to counter such a risk. Since 2009 China has raised the fuel tax rate many times to enhance tax reform. However, the effects of this policy remain unknown. Therefore, it is vitally important to estimate the impacts of China's current fuel taxation policy on environment, public health and the national economy. As the first attempt in existing literature on China, this paper builds a general equilibrium framework with the feedback effect of public health on economy. We find that that the fuel tax policy benefits the adjustment of the economic structure and improves human health; however, it is detrimental to economic growth, public welfare and price stability. In this sense, it plays a limited role in reducing the trap risk and might not be sustainable in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|