Determining the effectiveness of the Danish packaging tax policy: The case of paper and paperboard packaging imports

Paper and paperboard incorporate a large variety of use in today's global society. Packaging is among them. The fields where paper and paperboard are adopted in the form of packaging include food and beverage, tobacco, electric and electronic equipment, machinery, construction materials, furniture, etc. But once the packed product is consumed, what happens to the packaging? What happens to the tons and tons of paper and paperboard packaging? The answer is waste accumulation. An increasing problem of waste generation has become associated with paper and paperboard packaging. Recognizing the challenge, various nations, especially EU member states have adopted packaging policies contemplated to deal with the issue. Among the policies instituted, environmental taxation has received comparatively little attention both in terms of application and investigating literature. Applied in the form of weight basis charges, the tax policy aims at reducing the demand for the subjected products. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effectiveness of the environmental taxes applied on paper and paperboard industrial packaging in the case of Denmark. Using a panel data analysis, the investigation focuses on the taxation impact on the import trade flow of paper and paperboard packaging entering into Danish territory. Gravitational regression model analysis is adopted to judge on the trade pattern. Results reveal that environmental taxes were effective in reducing the quantity imported of paper and paperboard. The reasons that might have stimulated the positive implementation are also emphasized as a remainder for future applications of the policy.

[1]  David Pearce,et al.  Market-based approaches to solid waste management , 1993 .

[2]  Ernst Worrell,et al.  Reduction of CO2 emissions by improved management of material and product use: the case of primary packaging , 2000 .

[3]  D. Kernohan.  Reverse Balkanisation? Trade Integration in South-East Europe. CEPS Working Document, No. 249, 11 August 2006 , 2006 .

[4]  Jonathan N. Katz,et al.  What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Jacob Klok,et al.  Ecological Tax Reform in Denmark: history and social acceptability , 2006 .

[6]  Paul W. Wilson,et al.  The Bias of Bootstrapped Versus Conventional Standard Errors in the General Linear and SUR Models , 1992, Econometric Theory.

[7]  Benoît Bosquet,et al.  Environmental tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence , 2000 .

[8]  Antonis Adam,et al.  Trade-Liberalization Strategies What Could Southeastern Europe Learn from Cefta and Bfta? , 2003, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[9]  Joseph Buongiorno,et al.  The demand for paper and paperboard: econometric models for the European Union , 2000 .

[10]  Norman D. Aitken.  The Effect of the EEC and EFTA on European Trade: A Temporal Cross-Section Analysis , 1973 .

[11]  P. J. Verdoorn,et al.  Two alternative estimates of the effects of EEC and EFTA on the pattern of trade , 1972 .

[12]  I. Brisson.  Packaging waste and the environment: economics and policy , 1993 .

[13]  H. White.  A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .

[14]  J. Tinbergen.  On the Theory of Economic Policy , 1954 .

[15]  G. Monette,et al.  Generalized Collinearity Diagnostics , 1992 .

[16]  Joseph Buongiorno,et al.  International Demand Equations for Forest Products: A Comparison of Methods , 2001 .

[17]  R. W. Parks,et al.  Bootstrap Methods for Inference in a Sur Model with Autocorrelated Disturbances , 2004 .

[18]  M. Wickens,et al.  A Survey of Some Recent Econometric Methods , 1989 .

[19]  Edwin M. Truman,et al.  An empirical examination of bilateral trade in Western Europe , 1973 .

[20]  A. Zellner.  An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias , 1962 .