Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39263532›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental development2024

Obstacles and appeal of environmental taxation: Insights from sub-Saharan Africa.

Giovanni Occhiali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Giovanni OcchialiInstitute of Development Studies (IDS) and International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD), United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing the slow pace of adoption of environmental taxes across low-income countries has become a significant priority among international financial institutions, multilateral development banks, and international donors. Yet little is known about the practical institutional, administrative, and political obstacles that have led to their slow implementation and how they can be made more appealing, especially across sub-Saharan Africa. Based on a review of the literature and 16 in-depth interviews with ministries of finance, revenue authorities, and other government representatives across six African countries, this paper provides exploratory evidence of these stakeholders' view about environmental taxes deployment in their countries' context. By increasing the visibility of these policymakers' opinions and priorities, this study aims to individuate areas in which further research can provide support for the introduction of environmental fiscal measures. While there are differences across the countries covered, a lack of data and analytical capacity to develop effective environmental taxes is a common theme, as well as the historical prioritisation of their revenue mobilisation capacity over their environmental impact. A great variety of government actors with a mandate over natural resources, often with competing policy priorities, coupled with a lack of coordination fora, has also impeded the harmonisation of the environmental charges they levy. These measures are also often perceived to be regressive and to pose an obstacle to industrial development, lowering their appeal, given that poverty reduction and employment creation are an overarching priority. Nonetheless, support for introducing specific environmental tax measures exists across the population and policymakers, especially if their revenue can be earmarked for environmental purposes.

Indexed as

Climate taxesEnvironmental taxesSub-Saharan AfricaTax administration

Identifiers

PMID39263532
PMCPMC11385670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.