Analysis on the Applicability of Fertilizer Tax in China

Abstract:

Environmental tax is a popular economic instrument dealing with nonpoint pollution. However, the differences between China and western countries cause it is not proper to apply in China. The fertilizer demand price elasticity is -0.345. The low elasticity suggests that the tax will have little effect on chemical use reduction. Moreover, in order to guarantee food security, Chinese government provides many subsidies to encourage farmers to continue their agricultural practices. Those subsidies also contribute to impair the effectiveness of the tax. Additionally, considering the weak role of farmers in current China society, it is difficult for the tax instrument to get its political legitimacy for the potential conflict on social equity. Other economic tools like payments should be taken into consideration when tackling agricultural nonpoint pollution.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 433-440)
• Pages: 1346-1349
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.433-440.1346
• Online since: January 2012
• Authors: Kan Liu, Sheng Ji Luan
• Keywords: Applicability Analysis, Cobb-Douglas Function, Demand Price Elasticity, Environmental Tax

References

[1] Ministry of Environmental Protection. Environmental Yearbook 2009. URL: http: /jcs. mep. gov. cn/hjzl/zkgb/2009hjzkgb/201006/t20100603_190423. htm.

[2] Qi Ye. Researches on China's Environmental Governance. Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing Company, (2008).

[3] Zhang Weili, Ji Hongjie, KOLBE H., Xu Aiguo. Estimation of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution in China and the Alleviating Strategies II. Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution and the Alleviating Strategies in European and American Countries,. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, Vol. 37, Issue 7, 2004, pp.1018-1025.

DOI: 10.1201/9781420033083.ch6

[4] Davies, J. Mazurek, J. Pollution Control in the United States. Washington, D.C.; Resources for the Future, (1998).

[5] Freeman, M. Water Pollution Policy, In policies for Environmental Protection. Edited by Portney, P. Washington, D.C.; Resources for the Future, (1990).

[6] Brady M. The Relative Cost-efficiency of Arable Nitrogen Management in Sweden,. Ecological Economics, Issue 47, 2003, pp.53-70.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2002.11.001

[7] Toke S.A. Green Taxes: Refunding Rules and Lobbying,. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Issue 60, 2010, pp.31-43.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.04.001

[8] David Pearce, Phoebe Koundouri. Fertilizer and Pesticide Taxes for Controlling Non-point Agricultural Pollution,. The World Bank Group, (2003).

[9] Wang Zuli, Xiao Haifeng. Analysis on the Effect of Fertilizer Use on Grain Production,. Issues in Agricultural Economy, Issue 8, 2008, pp.65-68.

[10] Zhang Chenglong, Chai Qinhu, Zhang Ailing, Han Weijian. Production Function Analysis of Maize Production in China,. Tsinghua Univ (Sci&Tech), Vol. 29, Issue 12, 2009, p.2024-(2027).

[11] Xu Weitao, Zhang Junbiao, Li Shuming, Sun Xiaonan. Decoupling Research on Relationship between Chemical Fertilizer Usage and Grain Production of Recycling Agriculture in China,. Research of Agricultural Modernization, Vol. 31, Issue 2, 2010, pp.200-203.

[12] National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistic Yearbook 2009. URL: http: /www. stats. gov. cn/tjsj/ndsj/2009/indexch. htm.

[13] National Development and Reform Commission. National Agricultural Costs and Returns compilation of information. Beijing: China Statistics Press, (2009).

[14] Lin Yifu, Rural Reforms and Agricultural Growth in China. Institution, Technology and Agricultural Development in China,. Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing Company, (2008).

[15] Geoff Edwards, Iain Fraser, Reconsidering Agri-environmental Policy Permitted by the Uruguay Round Agreement,. Ecological Economics, Issue 37, 2001, pp.313-326.

DOI: 10.1016/s0921-8009(00)00289-5