2026-10-07T00:23:34Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/30686189 2026-09-17T08:05:44Z category_27673 category_29869 category_25963 category_25993 item_type_3 month_year_09_2026

Impact of cost transparency and mixed revenue use on the maximum acceptable carbon tax Felix Mölk (21686276) Environmental politics Applied statistics Environment and resource economics Public economics - taxation and revenue Carbon Tax Acceptability Stated Preference Environmental Policy Mixed Revenue Recycling Cost Transparency <p dir="ltr">This study investigates how two understudied policy design features, <b>mixed revenue use</b> and <b>cost transparency, </b>shape public acceptability of carbon taxation. While carbon pricing is one of the most effective tools for reducing CO₂ emissions, public resistance remains a major barrier to implementation. Many citizens overestimate costs, misunderstand the tax’s impact, or doubt that revenues will be used effectively. This research evaluates whether clarifying policy costs and allowing revenues to support multiple causes can increase public acceptability.</p><p dir="ltr">The study relies on <b>representative online surveys in Germany (n = 1327) and Italy (n = 1293)</b>. Respondents completed measures of environmental values, environmental concerns, institutional trust, and social trust before participating in a preregistered 2×2 experiment. The two experimental factors were:</p><ol><li><b>Revenue Recycling:</b></li><li><ul><li><i>Single-use</i>: respondents allocate revenues to one purpose only.</li><li><i>Mixed-use</i>: respondents freely distribute revenues across twelve policy areas (e.g., public transport, rebates, climate projects).</li></ul></li><li><b>Cost Transparency:</b></li><li><ul><li><i>Control</i>: carbon tax increases shown only in €/tCO₂.</li><li><i>Transparency treatment</i>: the same increases additionally shown as <b>fuel-price equivalents</b> (€/liter of gasoline), making costs more intuitive.</li></ul></li></ol><p dir="ltr">Participants then indicated the <b>maximum carbon tax increase</b> they would accept using a payment card method.</p><p dir="ltr">The findings show that citizens make meaningful use of mixed revenue options and diversify spending across causes, but <b>mixed-use does not increase tax acceptability</b>. By contrast, <b>cost transparency significantly and robustly increases the maximum acceptable carbon tax</b>, suggesting that clear, intuitive communication about costs can strengthen public acceptability. Contrary to expectations, transparency does <i>not</i> primarily help those who overestimate costs. Instead, it seems to work through two mechanisms:<br>(1) <i>confirming</i> correct beliefs about cost levels, and<br>(2) <i>correcting</i> inflated cost perceptions among overestimators.</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">Overall, the study offers new insights into how communication and policy design can improve the political feasibility of carbon taxation. While mixing revenue uses does not raise public acceptability directly, cost transparency emerges as a powerful and low-risk tool for enhancing legitimacy and acceptability of ambitious climate policy.</p> 2026-09-17T08:05:44Z Dataset Dataset 10.6084/m9.figshare.30686189.v1 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Impact_of_cost_transparency_and_mixed_revenue_use_on_the_maximum_acceptable_carbon_tax/30686189 CC BY 4.0