Conclusions

This paper has raised a large number of issues that arise in connection with the taxation of environmental pollution. It has looked at the rationale for such taxes, and compared the actual tax polices with the 'ideal' tax structures. In designing these 'second best' environmental taxes, there are a number of features that need to be addressed. The paper has discussed these features and how they could be accommodated in a tax system. In particular, it has been pointed out that (a) there is more scope for shifting the overall tax system to include more environmental taxes and less of other taxes; and (b) the levels of the environmental taxes should be based more closely on information about efficiency aspects and damage aspects.

Section 3 looked at the experience in OECD countries and Section 4 at the experience of Economies in Transition. The comparison makes it clear that both groups are learning about how to make such taxes more effective and how to make them 'work'. Thus there is no simple blueprint that can be passed on to the transition economies from the OECD countries. Both need to work in this area and compare experiences from time to time.

The rates at which the taxes are levied vary so much that it should be possible to see if those who have high rates are suffering the consequences that are often supposed to follow from such high rates, i.e., a loss of competitiveness and employment. It would be extremely useful if such a comparison could be made soon. In the meantime, the three Baltic states should look at their environmental tax structures and compare their experiences on an ongoing basis.


REC * PUBLICATIONS * PAPER SERIES * ENVIRONMENTAL TAXATION

PREVIOUS NEXT COVER PAGE HOME PAGE