## wpiea2019089 — References (Appendix 2 excerpt)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [wpiea2019089 — References (Appendix 2 excerpt)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019089.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019089.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019089.pdf.json)

---

### Main findings and magnitudes
- Global post-tax energy subsidies:
  - U.S. $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of world GDP) in 2015.
  - U.S. $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017.
- Change relative to earlier estimate (Coady and others, 2015):
  - Earlier 2015 estimate U.S. $5.3 trillion; absolute difference -$632 billion.
  - Decomposition of the $632 billion difference:
    - Differences in country coverage: $105 billion (17%).
    - Updates of OECD producer subsidies: -$122 billion (-2%).
    - Changes in consumption: -$389 billion (62%).
    - Changes in prices (consumer prices and supply costs): $49 billion (8%).
    - Changes in externality estimates: -$382 billion (60%).
- Pre-tax subsidies:
  - Declined from 0.77 percent of global GDP or U.S. $572 billion in 2012 to 0.36 percent of global GDP or $269 billion in 2016; rose to $296 billion (0.37 percent of GDP) in 2017.
- Relative importance:
  - Post-tax subsidies are 15-20 times larger than pre-tax subsidies.

### Regional and country distributions (2015)
- Largest country-level post-tax subsidizers (absolute):
  - China: $1.4 trillion.
  - United States: $649 billion.
  - Russia: $551 billion.
  - European Union: $289 billion.
  - India: $209 billion.
- Regional shares of global post-tax subsidies:
  - Emerging/Developing Asia: nearly 40 percent.
  - Advanced Economies: 27 percent.
  - Commonwealth of Independent States: 15 percent.
  - Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan: 9 percent.
  - Latin America/Caribbean: 5 percent.
  - Emerging/Developing Europe: 3 percent.
  - Sub-Sahara Africa: 2 percent.
- Post-tax subsidies by region (amounts):
  - E.D. Asia $1.9 trillion; Advanced countries $1.3 trillion; CIS $0.7 trillion; MENAP $0.4 trillion; LAC $0.2 trillion; E.D. Europe $0.1 trillion; SSA $0.09 trillion.
- Post-tax subsidies as share of regional GDP:
  - Advanced countries ~3 percent; CIS 36 percent; MENAP 13 percent; E.D. Asia 12 percent.
- Per capita examples (2015):
  - Russia $3,832; Saudi Arabia $3,709; United Arab Emirates $2,452; United States $2,028; Kazakhstan $1,631.

### Composition by component and fuel (2015)
- Post-tax subsidies by component (global aggregation):
  - Local air pollution underpricing: 48 percent.
  - Global warming underpricing: 24 percent.
  - Broader environmental costs of road fuels: 15 percent.
  - Undercharging for general consumption taxes: 7 percent.
  - Undercharging for supply costs: 7 percent.
  - Implication: about three quarters of the benefits from energy pricing reform are local.
- By fuel product (share of post-tax subsidy, 2015):
  - Coal: 44 percent.
  - Petroleum: 41 percent.
  - Natural gas: 10 percent.
  - Electricity output: 4 percent.
- Component shares by fuel:
  - For coal: global warming 30 percent and air pollution 69 percent of post-tax subsidy.
  - For petroleum: local air pollution ~38 percent and congestion/accidents ~36 percent of its post-tax subsidy.

### Counterfactual reform impacts (2015 counterfactual: prices equal fully efficient levels)
- Emissions, health, fiscal, and welfare impacts:
  - Global CO2 emissions would have been 28 percent lower.
  - Fossil fuel air pollution deaths 46 percent lower.
  - Tax revenues higher by 3.8 percent of global GDP (global fiscal gain U.S. $2.8 trillion for 2015).
  - Projected fiscal gain for 2017 ≈ $3.2 trillion (4 percent of global GDP).
  - Net economic benefits (environmental benefits less economic costs) ≈ $1.3 trillion, or 1.7 percent of global GDP in 2015.
- Regional variation examples:
  - CO2 reduction range: 22 percent in E.D. Europe to 35 percent in CIS.
  - Premature death reduction range: 29 percent in LAC to 51 percent in CIS.
- Fuel contribution to benefits:
  - Around 80 percent of CO2 reduction due to reduction in coal use.
  - Nearly 85 percent of air-pollution death reduction due to coal.

### Methodology (components of efficient fuel prices and key inputs)
- Efficient fuel price components:
  1. Economic (opportunity) cost of supplying fuel to consumers (international reference prices or domestic cost-recovery prices).
  2. Environmental costs: local air pollution mortality; broader road-fuel costs (congestion, accidents, road damage); global warming.
  3. General revenue-raising considerations: apply same consumption taxes (e.g., standard VAT) to final fuel consumption.
- Definition of subsidies:
  - Post-tax subsidy = difference between actual consumer fuel prices and prices that fully reflect supply costs plus taxes needed for environmental costs and revenue requirements.
  - Pre-tax subsidy defined as difference between actual consumer payments and the opportunity cost of supply; producer subsidies included in pre-tax but relatively small.
  - Where prices exceed efficient levels, subsidies are counted as zero.
- Environmental valuation choices used in estimates:
  - Illustrative CO2 value of $40 per ton for 2015 emissions, rising at 3 percent a year in real terms (U.S. IAWG 2016).
  - Mortality valuation base updated to $4.7 million for 2015 (OECD (2012) meta-analysis base, updated for inflation and income growth); mortality values extrapolated to other countries proportional to per capita income in 2015 (unitary elasticity).
- Air pollution modeling elements:
  - PM2.5 central to mortality estimates; concentration-response functions based on Burnett and others (2013, 2014): each 10 microgram/cubic meter increase in ambient PM2.5 raises prevalence of strokes by 15 percent, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 5 percent, ischemic heart disease by 8 percent, and lung cancer by 7 percent.
  - Intake fractions from Parry and others (2014) used without updating; intake fraction data available for 110 countries in 2009, others inferred.
  - Emission rates updated from 2010 to 2015 using recent modelling; notable change: in China coal plant emission rates about 60 percent lower.
  - Example mortality valuation and country inputs: Mortality values vary from $0.2 million (Ethiopia) to $7.3 million (United Arab Emirates) in 2015$.
- Demand and elasticity assumptions:
  - Constant elasticity demand functions and perfectly elastic supply.
  - Price elasticities: electricity demand, gasoline and diesel, industrial and household fuels = -0.5; power-sector fossil generation fuels = -0.7.
  - Average emission rates assumed to reflect those with advanced control technologies.

### Selected country and fuel-level examples (2015)
- Coal (power generation) local air pollution damages (USD per GJ):
  - China $9; India $7; Indonesia $7; Pakistan $5; Thailand $17.
  - Germany $8; Turkey $15; United Kingdom $13; Russia $15; Ukraine $38.
  - Ethiopia $0.3; Côte d’Ivoire $0.3; Morocco $1.6; South Africa $2.8; Tanzania $0.5.
  - Australia $0.8; Canada $1.0; Japan $2.5.
  - Colombia $1.8; Costa Rica $1.1; Jamaica $1.7.
- Natural gas (power generation):
  - Gas prices typically around 50-80 percent of efficient price; supply prices around $2.5-10 per GJ.
  - Carbon emission rates per GJ about 40 percent lower for gas than for coal.
  - Local air pollution damages typically $0-1.5 per GJ for countries shown.
- Gasoline (road):
  - Supply costs $0.42-$0.76 per liter in 2015 for countries shown.
  - Global warming costs ~ $0.10 per liter.
  - VAT component of efficient gasoline prices varies between $0.10 and $0.30 per liter across most countries.
  - Traffic congestion costs exceed global warming/local air pollution combined in 18 countries shown.
- Diesel (road):
  - Undercharging pervasive; prices fall short of efficient levels by more than 20 percent in 22 countries.
  - Local air pollution costs for diesel substantially larger than for gasoline.

### Sensitivity analysis (selected outcomes and ranges)
- Global post-tax subsidies as share of global GDP under sensitivity exercises (2015 baseline 6.3 percent):
  - Lower-bound estimates range from 4.6-6.2 percent.
  - Upper-bound estimates range from 6.4-7.9 percent.
- Effects of varying key parameters (selected entries, 2015 and 2017 pairs where provided; order corresponds broadly to pre-tax percent of GDP, post-tax percent of GDP, revenue gains percent of GDP, percent reduction in CO2 emissions, percent reduction in premature deaths, net welfare gain percent of GDP):
  - Baseline (2015, 2017): 0.4, 6.3, 3.8, 27.5, 46.2, 1.7 (2015); 0.4, 6.5, 4.0, 26.5, 44.9, 1.7 (2017).
  - Fuel price elasticities increased by 50% → larger CO2 and death reductions and higher welfare gains (e.g., CO2 reduction 37.8 and 36.6; deaths 55.1 and 53.5; net welfare gain 2.2 and 2.2).
  - Fuel price elasticities decreased by 50% → smaller CO2 and death reductions and lower welfare gains (e.g., CO2 reduction 15.1 and 14.5; deaths 35.1 and 34.4; net welfare gain 1.1 and 1.1).
  - Global warming damages ±50% → post-tax subsidies move between 5.4 percent and 7.1 percent of global GDP; corresponding changes in revenue gains and welfare gains reported.
  - Air pollution damages ±50% → substantial impacts on post-tax subsidies and welfare gains (e.g., air pollution damages increased by 50% → post-tax subsidies up to 7.9/8.3; net welfare gain up to 2.5/2.6).
  - Income elasticity of mortality valuation varied between 0.8 and 1.2 → post-tax subsidies between 5.9 and (source truncated) percent of global GDP; baseline sensitivity rows show modest variation in CO2 and death reductions and net welfare gains.

### Health impacts and valuation details
- Global CO2 and GHG context:
  - Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and other industrial sources were 34 billion (metric) tons in 2016.
    - Share by fuel: coal 40 percent; oil 34 percent; natural gas 20 percent; cement limestone combustion 6 percent.
  - Non-CO2 GHGs contributed 12 billion tons to 2016 emissions.
  - Human-induced land use and deforestation: 4.5 billion tons.
- CO2 valuation and price benchmarks:
  - Some recent assessments suggest an SCC of around $35 per ton for 2015 emissions (U.S. $2015).
  - Prices consistent with 2oC stabilization: $40-80 per ton (in $2015) by 2020.
  - Recent assessment: price consistent with mitigation pledges around $35 per ton in 2030 (in 2015$) for G20 combined.
  - Paper uses illustrative CO2 value $40 per ton for 2015 emissions rising 3 percent a year in real terms.
- Air pollution mortality methodology highlights:
  - Baseline mortality rates for exposed populations from WHO (2017).
  - Concentration-response functions based on Burnett and others (2013, 2014); linear and identical across countries.
  - Intake fractions from Parry and others (2014) used; intake-fraction data available for 110 countries in 2009; others inferred regionally.
  - Emission rates updated 2010→2015; China coal plant emission rates about 60 percent lower; on-road diesel emission rates revised upwards.
  - Mortality value per statistical life (2015$) base $4.7 million; country extrapolation proportional to per capita income (unitary elasticity).

### Broader vehicle externalities and adjustments
- Congestion:
  - Marginal delay assumed ~4 times average delay, adjusted downward for responsiveness; value of travel time = 60 percent of the market wage.
  - Congestion costs converted to per liter fuel using fuel economy; a ~50 percent downward adjustment applied for portion of price-induced fuel reduction coming from reduced vehicle miles.
- Traffic accidents and road damage:
  - Country-level traffic fatality data apportioned into external vs internal risks; monetized using mortality valuation.
  - Road damage costs updated using highway maintenance expenditures, attributing half to vehicles.
- Note: External costs from electric vehicles not included; switching to electric vehicles would lower computed efficient taxes on road fuels.

### Policy analysis, implications, and caveats
- Principal policy implications:
  - Post-tax measures document pervasive underpricing of fossil fuels and indicate large macroeconomic importance of reform.
  - Eliminating post-tax subsidies yields large fiscal gains, large reductions in CO2 and premature air-pollution deaths, and positive net welfare gains.
  - About three quarters of benefits from reform are local, making reform largely in countries’ own interest.
  - Composition of subsidies likely to evolve: carbon pricing value may rise with strengthened Paris pledges while underpricing for air pollution may decline with improved local air-emission controls.
- Implementation constraints and alternatives:
  - Not all countries can or will raise fossil fuel prices due to political economy, competitiveness, or other national circumstances.
  - Alternative instruments that mimic behavioral responses to higher fuel prices may be preferred in some countries (for example, targeted taxes/subsidies distinguishing emissions-intensive from non-emissions-intensive generators).
  - Pure fuel taxes are not always the single most efficient instrument; upstream charges, emissions fees, ETSs, or sector-specific measures can be more efficient depending on context.
- Analytical caveats:
  - Estimates are a first-pass cross-country exercise with simplifications; country authorities may disagree on parameter choices.
  - The efficient energy price estimates largely exclude the possibility of accompanying downstream rebates or measures that could lower the efficient energy price.
  - Online spreadsheets and country-level tools accompany the analysis to facilitate sensitivity analysis and further refinement.

*Source: wpiea2019089 — Appendix 2 and References (excerpt).*

### References .............................................................................................................

### wpiea2019089 - References

### Introduction and Context
- There is unprecedented worldwide interest in the reform of fossil fuel pricing driven by:
  - CO2 emissions mitigation commitments submitted by 190 countries for the 2015 Paris Agreement.
  - Concerns about dangerously high local air pollution concentrations frequently exceeding WHO guidelines, much of which comes from fossil fuel combustion.
  - Growing fiscal pressures after the financial crisis, including rising debt levels, ageing populations (especially in advanced economies), and financing needs for the Sustainable Development Goals (especially in developing economies).
- Increasing fossil fuel prices is administratively straightforward and could address environmental, health, and fiscal concerns simultaneously.

### Purpose of the Paper
- Provides an updated assessment of global and regional energy subsidies based on comprehensive country-level estimates for 191 countries.
- Aims to supply information on the gap between existing and efficient fossil fuel prices to inform debates on fuel pricing reform.
  - The price gap underpins understanding of environmental, fiscal, and economic welfare impacts of moving to more efficient pricing.
  - It serves as a benchmark to evaluate alternative policies (e.g., less ambitious fuel pricing or non-pricing instruments), understand trade-offs, prioritize reforms, and communicate the case for reform.

### Prior Estimates and Need for Update
- Coady and others (2015) projected global energy subsidies for 2015 at $5.3 trillion, or 6.5 percent of global GDP.
  - Under-charging for domestic air pollution accounted for about half of the total subsidy.
  - Global warming accounted for about a quarter of the total subsidy.
- Updating these estimates is important because:
  - Policy landscapes change: some countries liberalize energy prices, introduce or scale up carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETSs), adjust energy tax systems, or implement additional measures (e.g., air emission regulations) to reduce local environmental impacts.
  - Impacts of domestic energy price reforms change with fuel consumption, international energy prices, numbers of people exposed to air pollution, road safety, and people’s valuation of environmental risks.
  - New and often higher empirical inputs and valuations become available over time, affecting estimates.

### Methodological Note
- The 2015 estimates by Coady and others used efficient tax estimates for fossil fuel products based on methodology developed by Parry and others (2014), while also accounting for additional consumption taxation needed for revenue objectives.
- Both Coady and Parry analyses provided online spreadsheet tools enabling cross-country comparisons and sensitivity analysis.

*Source: wpiea2019089 - References (excerpt).*

### Appendix 2 highlights some recent energy and carbon pricing developments.

### Appendix 2 highlights some recent energy and carbon pricing developments.

### Main findings
- Underpricing of fossil fuels remains pervasive and substantial. Country-level coal prices were typically well below half of their fully efficient levels in 2015. Undercharging for road fuels frequently falls short of their efficient levels by over 20 percent.
- Global energy subsidies:
  - $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of world GDP) in 2015.
  - $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017.
- Drivers of the 2015 update:
  - Moderately smaller global figure for 2015 compared to previous estimates mainly due to lower externality estimates (e.g., lower air pollution emission rates in China) and lower (than previously projected) fuel consumption, reflecting updated data and regulatory policy changes.
  - Numerous product- and country-level offsetting factors can significantly change energy subsidy estimates.
  - The impact of recent energy (and carbon) pricing reform at the global level is limited.
- Largest subsidizers in 2015 (absolute terms):
  - China: $1.4 trillion.
  - United States: $649 billion.
  - Russia: $551 billion.
  - European Union: $289 billion.
  - India: $209 billion.
- Regional shares of global energy subsidies (2015):
  - Emerging/Developing Asia: nearly 40 percent.
  - Advanced Economies: 27 percent.
  - Commonwealth of Independent States: 15 percent.
  - Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan: 9 percent.
  - Latin America/Caribbean: 5 percent.
  - Emerging/Developing Europe: 3 percent.
  - Sub-Sahara Africa: 2 percent.
- By component (2015):
  - Local air pollution underpricing: 48 percent.
  - Global warming underpricing: 24 percent.
  - Broader environmental costs of road fuels: 15 percent.
  - Undercharging for general consumption taxes: 7 percent.
  - Undercharging for supply costs: 7 percent.
  - Implication: about three quarters of the benefits from energy pricing reform are local — reform is largely in countries' own interest.
- By fuel (2015):
  - Coal: 44 percent of subsidies.
  - Petroleum: 41 percent.
  - Natural gas: 10 percent.
  - Electricity output: 4 percent.
- Counterfactual impacts if fuel prices had been set at fully efficient levels in 2015:
  - Global CO2 emissions would have been 28 percent lower.
  - Fossil fuel air pollution deaths 46 percent lower.
  - Tax revenues higher by 3.8 percent of global GDP.
  - Net economic benefits (environmental benefits less economic costs) would have amounted to 1.7 percent of global GDP.

### Organization of the rest of the paper (as stated)
- Section 2: Recap definition of corrective fuel taxes and energy subsidies and procedures for updating estimates, with focus on local air pollution.
- Section 3: Quantitative results; complete set for 191 countries in online spreadsheet; reconciliation with earlier estimates; sensitivity analyses for key parameter uncertainty.
- Section 4: Concluding remarks.

### Methodology — Components of efficient fuel prices
- Economically efficient fossil fuel prices have three basic components:
  1. Economic (opportunity) cost of supplying fuel to consumers.
     - For traded products (e.g., gasoline, diesel): measured by international reference price as faced by importers or revenue foregone by domestic consumption rather than exporting.
     - For non-traded energy (e.g., electricity): domestic production cost or ‘cost-recovery’ price, with fuel inputs evaluated at international reference prices.
  2. Environmental costs associated with fossil fuel consumption, notably:
     - Local air pollution mortality.
     - Broader costs from use of fuels in road vehicles.
     - Global warming.
     - Valuation of environmental costs is contentious and measured with considerable uncertainty.
  3. General revenue-raising considerations:
     - Apply same consumption taxes to fuels as to other consumption goods (under near ubiquitous VAT, apply standard VAT rate to final fuel consumption based on prices that reflect supply and environmental costs, but not to intermediate purchases).

- Notes on environmental instruments and interpretation:
  - Pure fuel taxes are not always the single most efficient instrument (e.g., fees on coal plant emissions can both reduce emission rates and coal use).
  - Online spreadsheets can convert efficient coal taxes into efficient emissions fees and combine upfront coal taxes with rebates for downstream mitigation.
  - Efficient energy price estimates largely exclude the possibility of accompanying measures (e.g., downstream rebates) that would lower the efficient energy price.
  - For traffic congestion, per-vehicle-mile fees that vary by time and location would be more efficient than higher road fuel prices, but nationwide congestion pricing is unlikely in the near term; thus unpriced nationwide congestion costs are reflected in road fuel prices.

### Definitions of fossil fuel subsidies
- Two notions distinguished:
  - Pre-tax subsidies: difference between actual consumer payments and the opportunity cost of supplying the fuel.
  - Post-tax subsidies: difference between actual consumer fuel prices and how much consumers would pay if prices fully reflected supply costs plus taxes needed for environmental costs and revenue requirements.
- This paper uses the post-tax measure as its definition of subsidies.
- Where prices exceed supply costs or efficient prices, pre-tax and post-tax subsidies are counted as zero (not negative), given focus on underpricing.
- Producer subsidies (direct/indirect support to firms) are included in pre-tax subsidies but are relatively small.
- Subsidies for non-fossil fuels are excluded.

### Environmental costs — Climate change
- Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and other industrial sources were 34 billion (metric) tons in 2016.
  - Coal, oil, and natural gas combustion accounted for 40, 34, and 20 percent of these emissions respectively.
  - Combustion of limestone in cement manufacturing: 6 percent.
  - Non-CO2 GHGs (methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons) contributed 12 billion tons to 2016 emissions.
  - Human-induced land use and deforestation: 4.5 billion tons.
- In absence of mitigating measures, fossil fuel emissions projected to grow more rapidly than other GHGs.
- Approaches to valuing CO2 emissions:
  - Social cost of carbon (SCC): some recent assessments suggest an SCC of around $35 per ton for 2015 emissions (in U.S. $2015), though estimates are contentious.
  - Prices consistent with temperature stabilization: review suggests a global CO2 emissions price of $40-80 per ton (in $2015) by 2020 would be consistent with limiting mean projected warming to 2oC.
  - Prices consistent with mitigation pledges: recent assessment puts this at around $35 per ton in 2030 (in 2015$) for G20 countries combined.
- Assumptions used in estimates discussed:
  - Illustrative CO2 value of $40 per ton for 2015 emissions, rising at 3 percent a year in real terms (U.S. IAWG 2016).
- Pricing options:
  - Efficient instrument: charge on fuel supply equal to fuel’s CO2 emissions factor times a CO2 price.
  - Alternatively, price emissions downstream (e.g., ETS) for large stationary sources but combine with upfront charges on fuel supply for small-scale sources.

### Environmental costs — Local air pollution (closer look and update)
- PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometers) causes air pollution mortality by penetrating lungs and bloodstream.
- PM2.5 can be emitted directly or formed indirectly from SO2 and NOx.
- Coal and diesel combustion (per unit of energy) are major causes of fossil fuel air pollution rather than natural gas and gasoline.
- Methodology follows Parry and others (2014), updated where practical, accounting for cross-border pollution.
- Air pollution damages depend on five factors (statistics shown for selected countries in Table 1 in source):
  1. Intake fraction: fraction of pollution emitted from a fuel product that is inhaled/ingested by exposed populations.
     - Intake fractions relied on Parry and others (2014) without updating.
     - For coal and natural gas plants: intake fractions from geographical data on plant locations matched to granular population density up to 2,000 km away and regression coefficients (for China) indicating how intake fractions vary with population density.
     - For vehicle and building emissions: intake fractions extrapolated nationwide from a database of ground-level intake fractions for over 3,000 urban areas.
     - Intake fractions for SO2 from coal plants relatively high in densely populated countries (e.g., China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, United Kingdom) and relatively low in low population density countries (e.g., Australia, Canada).
  2. Baseline mortality rates for exposed populations for four fatal illnesses — strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, and lung cancer — with mortality rates (for those over 25) taken from WHO (2017) and more accurate than earlier regional averages.
     - Baseline mortality rates vary significantly across countries and are relatively high in Russia and Ukraine.
  3. Concentration-response functions for each of the four illnesses: proportionate increase in mortality risk as a function of ambient PM2.5 concentration.
     - Based on Burnett and others (2013, 2014), taken to be the same across countries and linear.
     - Each 10 microgram/cubic meter increase in ambient PM2.5 increases prevalence of:
       - Strokes by 15 percent.
       - Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 5 percent.
       - Ischemic heart disease by 8 percent.
       - Lung cancer by 7 percent.
     - Some new research (Burnett and others 2018) suggests mortality may be dramatically more responsive to PM2.5 exposure than previously thought; current air pollution cost estimates might be conservative.
  4. (Implicit) Other factors include population exposure patterns and cross-border transport; checks against regional air quality models suggest ignoring some atmospheric differences may not substantially bias results.
  5. (Implicit) Data limitations: intake fraction data available for 110 countries in 2009; intake fractions for other countries inferred from comparable countries in the region.
- Notes on scope:
  - Indoor air pollution caused an estimated 2.9 million deaths in 2015 vs. 4.2 million deaths for outdoor air pollution (GBD 2016), but indoor pollution not considered here.
  - Ozone accounts for 7 percent of outdoor air pollution deaths worldwide (GBD 2016) and is not considered here.
  - WHO (2017) reports outdoor pollution-related deaths by country for 2015 but not broken down by fuel product or cross-border mortality attribution.

*Source: Appendix 2 of the provided IMF content unit.*

### 4.0 million in previous estimates (in part due to a wider range of diseases whose prevalence is increased from

### wpiea2019089 - 4.0 million in previous estimates (in part due to a wider range of diseases whose prevalence is increased from

### Health impacts and mortality valuation
- Concentration response functions may flatten out at extreme levels, beyond about 100 micrograms/cubic meter, reducing incremental health benefits from cutting pollution; country average concentrations are well below this level.
- Mortality impacts per ton of direct PM2.5, SO2 and NOx are combined with country- and fuel-specific emission rates to express deaths per unit of fuel use.
- Emission rates were obtained from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and updated from 2010 to 2015 using recent modelling.
- For industrial and household sectors where data are sparse, the same emission rates as estimated for the power sector are used, likely giving conservative pollution damages.
- Emission rates (power and transport) represent an average across sources with and without most advanced emissions control technologies.
- Examples of estimated death rates from coal used for power generation (deaths per million GJ, Table 1, fifth column):
  - Below 1 in eight countries: Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, United States (examples).
  - Between 1 and 3 in thirteen countries: Colombia, Ethiopia, Germany, Kazakhstan, Philippines (examples).
  - Between 3 and 10 in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, and Turkey.
  - 43 in Ukraine.
- Notable changes since Parry and others (2014):
  - In China the emission rates for coal plants are about 60 percent lower.
  - On-road emission rates for diesel vehicles revised upwards (on-road emission rates exceeded new vehicle standards).

- Converting health impacts into monetary terms:
  - OECD (2012) meta-analysis base updated (for inflation and real per capita income growth) to $4.7 million for 2015 as the average mortality value.
  - Mortality values are extrapolated to other countries in proportion to their per capita income in 2015 relative to the OECD average (unitary elasticity of mortality value with respect to income in this approach).
  - Previous elasticity used in Parry and others (2014) was 0.8; more recent studies typically assume elasticity about 0.8-1.0 for advanced countries and 1.0-1.2, or perhaps as high as 1.5, for low and middle income countries.
  - Mortality values (Table 1 last column) vary from $0.2 million (Ethiopia) to $7.3 million (United Arab Emirates).
- Example country statistics from Table 1 (columns shown in source):
  - Ukraine: Intake fraction 1.31; SO2 emission rates at coal plants 16.0 (kilo-tons/petajoule); Death rates from coal plants, per mn GJ 1.42; Deaths per mn GJ reported as 43.1; Mortality value, 2015$ million 0.9.
  - China: Intake fraction 4.25; Mortality rate from pollution-related illness, deaths per 1000 = 5.3; SO2 emission rates at coal plants, kilo-tons/petajoule = 0.08; Death rates from coal plants, per mn GJ = 5.8; Mortality value, 2015$ million = 1.6.
  - United States: Intake fraction 0.70; Mortality rate 4.9; SO2 emission rates 0.17; Death rates from coal plants per mn GJ 0.9; Mortality value $6.1 million.
  - India: Intake fraction 3.42; Mortality rate 3.9; SO2 emission rates 0.43; Death rates per mn GJ 9.9; Mortality value $0.7 million.
  - (Additional country-specific numeric entries appear in the source table; all numeric values are preserved there.)

### Broader vehicle externalities
- Congestion:
  - Nationwide average congestion costs estimated using relationships between average travel delays per vehicle mile and transportation indicators from a 100-city international database; extrapolated nationwide using country-level indicators.
  - Marginal delay assumed around four times average delay, with downward adjustment to account for weaker responsiveness of busy-road driving to fuel prices.
  - Adjustments made for share of buses and trucks; monetized using value of travel time = 60 percent of the market wage.
  - Value of travel time updated with inflation and growth in real GDP per capita.
  - Congestion costs multiplied by fuel economy to express per liter of fuel use; a downward adjustment of about 50 percent applied to account for portion of price-induced fuel reduction coming from reduced vehicle miles versus long-run fuel economy improvements.
- Traffic accidents:
  - Country-level traffic fatality data apportioned into external vs internal risks and monetized using mortality valuation approach.
  - Re-estimated using 2015 traffic fatality data from IRF (2017) and updated injury valuations.
  - Road damage costs (applicable to high axle-weight vehicles) updated using highway maintenance expenditures from IRF (2017), attributing half the expenditures to vehicles.
- Data limitations: Where country data unavailable, congestion, accident, and road damage costs are taken from comparable countries in the region.
- Note: Underpricing for congestion, accident, and road damage costs from electric vehicles is not counted in subsidy estimates; switching to electric vehicles would lower computed efficient taxes on road fuels.

### Remaining data and estimation procedures
- Retail prices and supply costs:
  - Retail prices converted to annual averages from various frequencies.
  - Petroleum retail prices sourced from IEA quarterly fuel price and tax database, supplemented by IMF sources and GIZ.
  - Retail prices for coal and natural gas inferred (for countries with pre-tax subsidies per IEA) by supply cost less per-unit subsidy; for OECD countries excise tax data from OECD Statistical Database; for other countries retail prices assumed equal supply cost.
  - For electricity, prices taken from IEA quarterly database on household prices, supplemented with EIA, IMF, World Bank, or news reports.
- Supply cost construction:
  - Finished petroleum supply costs use port (or hub) prices from IEA mapped to United States, NW Europe, or Singapore; add shipping and distribution margin of $0.20 per liter for net oil importers.
  - Natural gas supply costs based on Henry Hub USA, Russian export price to Germany, and Japan, mapped by region.
  - Coal supply prices based on average of South Africa and Australia prices, converted per GJ using consumption-weighted conversion factor.
  - Electricity supply costs assumed equal retail price plus any pre-tax subsidy per unit.
- Energy consumption data:
  - Primary source IEA, supplemented by EIA and United Nations.
  - Assumption: final consumption (VAT applicable) = residential, commercial, public services; gasoline final consumption includes gasoline used for transportation.
  - Where no fuel use data available, fuel use extrapolated from comparable countries adjusting for real GDP.
  - Fuel consumption for 2016 and 2017 based on projections.
- Miscellaneous:
  - Consumption tax component of efficient energy prices computed by standard VAT/general sales tax applied to sum of supply and environmental cost for final consumption only.
  - Additional data on income and inflation from IMF (2018).
  - Producer subsidy estimates from OECD.
- Calculating subsidies and reform impacts:
  - Environmental cost estimates for 2010 and 2015 used; costs for 2011-2014 interpolated linearly in real terms and adjusted for inflation; projections for 2016-2017 obtained using 2015 estimates with inflation and income adjustments.
  - Fuel demand responses modeled with constant elasticity demand functions and perfectly elastic supply functions.
  - Price elasticities:
    - Electricity demand, gasoline and diesel, industrial and household fuels = -0.5.
    - Power-sector fossil generation fuels = -0.7.
  - Average emission rates assumed to reflect those with advanced control technologies (assumption that reform would be accompanied by measures to promote greater use of control technologies).

### Results — comparing current and efficient prices for selected countries (2015)
- Coal (power generation):
  - Global warming damages ≈ $4 per GJ of coal (using illustrative $40 per ton for CO2).
  - Local air pollution damages vary dramatically; examples ($ per GJ):
    - China $9, India $7, Indonesia $7, Pakistan $5, Thailand $17.
    - Germany $8, Turkey $15, United Kingdom $13, Russia $15, Ukraine $38.
    - Ethiopia $0.3, Côte d’Ivoire $0.3, Morocco $1.6, South Africa $2.8, Tanzania $0.5.
    - Australia $0.8, Canada $1.0, Japan $2.5.
    - Colombia $1.8, Costa Rica $1.1, Jamaica $1.7.
  - Undercharging for coal use is substantial and pervasive; current prices typically a minor fraction of efficient prices.
- Natural gas (power generation):
  - Gas prices typically around 50-80 percent of efficient price.
  - Supply prices around $2.5-10 per GJ.
  - Absolute carbon emission rates per GJ about 40 percent lower for gas than for coal.
  - Local air pollution damages modest, between $0-1.5 per GJ for countries shown.
- Gasoline (road):
  - Supply costs were $0.42-$0.76 per liter in 2015 for countries shown.
  - Prices exceed supply costs in all but three cases (Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia).
  - Global warming costs ~ $0.10 per liter.
  - Local air pollution costs about the same or smaller than global warming costs (Russia an exception).
  - Traffic congestion costs exceed global warming/local air pollution combined in 18 countries.
  - VAT component of efficient gasoline prices varies between $0.10 and $0.30 per liter across most countries.
- Diesel (road):
  - Undercharging pervasive; prices fall short of efficient levels by more than 20 percent in 22 countries.
  - Local air pollution costs for diesel substantially larger than for gasoline.
  - Congestion and accident costs per liter generally smaller for diesel (share of heavy-duty vehicles).
  - VAT component for diesel smaller due to substantial intermediate use.

### Global and regional fossil fuel subsidies (2010–2017)
- Global pre-tax subsidies:
  - Declined from 0.77 percent of global GDP or U.S. $572 billion in 2012 to 0.36 percent of global GDP or $269 billion in 2016.
  - Pre-tax subsidy rose to $296 billion (0.37 percent of GDP) in 2017.
- Global post-tax subsidies:
  - Vary between 5.4 and 6.5 percent of global GDP between 2010 and 2017.
  - Nominal global subsidies were $4.7 trillion in 2015 and $5.2 trillion in 2017.
  - Post-tax subsidies are 15-20 times larger than pre-tax subsidies.
- Subsidies by fuel product (2015):
  - Coal accounted for 44 percent of the global post-tax subsidy.
  - Petroleum accounted for 41 percent.
  - Natural gas 10 percent.
  - Electricity 4 percent.
- Post-tax subsidies by component (2015, global aggregation):
  - Underpricing for air pollution: 48 percent of post-tax subsidies.
  - Undercharging for global warming: 24 percent.
  - Broader environmental costs of road fuels: 15 percent.
  - Undercharging for general consumer taxes (forgone consumption tax revenue): 7 percent.
  - Underpricing for supply costs (pre-tax gaps): 7 percent.
  - For coal: global warming 30 percent and air pollution 69 percent of post-tax subsidy.
  - For petroleum: local air pollution ~38 percent and congestion/accidents ~36 percent of its post-tax subsidy.
- Regional distribution (2015):
  - Pre-tax subsidies concentrated in developing regions; MENAP accounts for $152 billion, CIS $49 billion, LAC $46 billion, E.D. Asia $38 billion, Advanced Economies $4 billion.
  - Post-tax subsidies amounts by region: E.D. Asia $1.9 trillion; Advanced countries $1.3 trillion; CIS $0.7 trillion; MENAP $0.4 trillion; LAC $0.2 trillion; E.D. Europe $0.1 trillion; SSA $0.09 trillion.
  - Post-tax subsidies as share of regional GDP: Advanced countries ~3 percent; CIS 36 percent; MENAP 13 percent; E.D. Asia 12 percent.
- Country-level:
  - China largest absolute subsidizer at $1.4 trillion in 2015.
  - Next largest: United States $649 billion; Russia $551 billion; European Union $289 billion; India $209 billion.
  - Per capita subsidies high in Russia $3,832; Saudi Arabia $3,709; UAE $2,452; United States $2,028; Kazakhstan $1,631.

### Reform benefits (removing subsidies, 2015 counterfactual: prices fully reflect efficient levels)
- Environmental benefits:
  - Global CO2 reduction = 28 percent (regionally 22 percent in E.D. Europe to 35 percent in CIS).
  - Around 80 percent of CO2 reduction due to reduction in coal use.
  - Reduction in premature global air pollution deaths ≈ 46 percent (range 29 percent in LAC to 51 percent in CIS).
  - Nearly 85 percent of air-pollution death reduction due to coal (reduced consumption and assumed accompanying reduction in air emission rates).
- Fiscal benefits:
  - Global fiscal gain = U.S. $2.8 trillion (3.8 percent of global GDP) for 2015.
  - Projected gain for 2017 ≈ $3.2 trillion (4 percent of global GDP).
  - Revenue gains are much lower than post-tax subsidies due to demand responses but still substantial.
- Economic welfare benefits:
  - Global annual net welfare gain from eliminating post-tax subsidies ≈ $1.3 trillion, or 1.7 percent of global GDP in 2015.
  - Regional and fuel-product distributions similar to post-tax subsidies and fiscal gains.

### Sensitivity analysis
- Key uncertainties: pass-through of international prices to domestic prices, price elasticities, transportation and distribution margins, global warming and air pollution valuations, vehicle externalities, income elasticity used to extrapolate mortality valuation.
- Table 3 (source) summarizes sensitivity analyses for global energy subsidies and reform benefits for 2015 and 2017; results generally moderately sensitive to assumptions.
- Global post-tax subsidies as share of global GDP under sensitivity exercises:
  - Lower-bound estimates range from 4.6-6.2 percent (baseline 6.3 percent in 2015).
  - Upper-bound estimates range from 6.4-7.9 percent.
  - If global warming damages 50 percent lower → post-tax subsidies remain substantial at 5.4 percent of global GDP.
  - If global warming damages 50 percent higher → post-tax subsidies reach 7.1 percent of global GDP.
  - Varying income elasticity for extrapolating mortality value between 0.8 and 1.2 implies post-tax subsidies of 5.9 to (source truncated).

*Source: IMF staff calculations and analysis as presented in the cited document.*

### 6.8 percent of global GDP.

### 6.8 percent of global GDP.

### Key findings and magnitudes
- Global post-tax energy subsidies, updated estimate (current) for 2015: U.S. $4.7 trillion.
- Earlier estimate (Coady and others, 2015) for 2015: U.S. $5.3 trillion.
- Absolute difference (new - old): -$632 billion (100% of the total difference).
- Percentage difference between earlier and updated post-tax estimates: $632 billion is about 13.5 percent larger than the updated estimate.
- Pre-tax subsidy estimates: earlier U.S. $333 billion versus updated U.S. $305 billion.
- Decomposition of the $632 billion difference:
  - Differences in country coverage: $105 billion (17%).
  - Updates of OECD producer subsidies: -$122 billion (-2%).
  - Changes in consumption: -$389 billion (62%).
  - Changes in prices (consumer prices and supply costs): $49 billion (8%).
  - Changes in externality estimates: -$382 billion (60%).
- Notable country-level changes in post-tax subsidies relative to earlier estimates:
  - China: $878 billion lower.
  - Russia: $217 billion higher.
- Observed drivers of changes include lower-than-projected actual fuel use in 2015 and lower environmental cost estimates, as well as changes in country coverage and consumer prices/supply costs.

### Sensitivity of benefits and welfare to key parameters
- General sensitivity statement: CO2, air pollution mortality, and economic welfare benefits are all sensitive to different assumptions for fuel price elasticities — for example, halving fuel price elasticities reduces CO2 and air pollution benefits by about half and welfare gains by about a third.
- Selected numerical sensitivity results (Baseline and alternative scenarios, 2015 and 2017 pairs shown where provided; metric order corresponds to: Pre-tax, percent of GDP (Energy subsidies); Benefits from reform; Revenue Gain; Percent Reduction in CO2 emissions; Percent reduction in premature deaths; Net welfare gain, percent of GDP; Post-tax, percent of GDP):
  - Baseline (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 6.3, 6.5, 3.8, 4.0, 27.5, 26.5, 46.2, 44.9, 1.7, 1.7
  - Fuel price elasticities increased by 50% (available entries): NA, NA, NA, NA, 3.1, 3.3, 37.8, 36.6, 55.1, 53.5, 2.2, 2.2
  - Fuel price elasticities decreased by 50% (available entries): NA, NA, NA, NA, 4.6, 4.8, 15.1, 14.5, 35.1, 34.4, 1.1, 1.1
  - Coal and Natural Gas increased to 0.5 (available entries): NA, NA, NA, NA, 3.2, 3.4, 43.6, 42.2, 58.2, 56.2, 2.2, 2.2
  - Transportation and distributive costs increased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 6.4, 6.6, 3.8, 4.1, 27.6, 26.6, 46.3, 45.0, 1.7, 1.7
  - Transportation and distributive costs decreased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 6.2, 6.5, 3.7, 3.9, 27.4, 26.3, 46.0, 44.7, 1.7, 1.7
  - Global warming damages increased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 7.1, 7.5, 4.3, 4.6, 29.9, 28.8, 47.7, 46.5, 1.9, 2.0
  - Global warming damages decreased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 5.4, 5.6, 3.2, 3.4, 24.6, 23.6, 44.3, 43.0, 1.5, 1.5
  - Air pollution damages increased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 7.9, 8.3, 4.5, 4.8, 30.5, 29.7, 49.4, 48.1, 2.5, 2.6
  - Air pollution damages decreased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 4.6, 4.8, 3.0, 3.2, 23.5, 22.1, 41.7, 40.4, 1.0, 1.0
  - Other vehicle externalities increased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 7.1, 7.4, 4.2, 4.4, 28.3, 27.4, 46.8, 45.5, 1.9, 1.9
  - Other vehicle externalities decreased by 50% (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 5.5, 5.8, 3.3, 3.5, 26.4, 25.2, 45.4, 44.1, 1.6, 1.6
  - Income elasticity of mortality value of life decreased to 0.8 (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 6.8, 7.0, 4.0, 4.2, 28.5, 27.5, 47.6, 46.2, 1.9, 1.9
  - Income elasticity of mortality value of life increased to 1.2 (2015, 2017): 0.4, 0.4, 5.9, 6.2, 3.6, 3.8, 26.5, 25.5, 44.8, 43.7, 1.5, 1.5

### Comparison with earlier estimates and drivers
- Most of the $632 billion reduction in post-tax subsidy estimates for 2015 is explained by:
  - Lower actual fuel consumption in 2015 than projected in the earlier study (explaining $389 billion).
  - Lower environmental cost estimates relative to prior projections (explaining $382 billion).
- Offsetting factors that moderately increased post-tax subsidies relative to earlier estimates include increased country coverage and changes in consumer prices and supply costs.
- The differences reflect a combination of data updates, methodological changes, and real-world pricing and regulatory reforms that reduced pre-tax subsidies and addressed environmental externalities (examples include China’s reduced coal consumption in 2015 versus 2012, substantial declines in air emission rates between 2010 and 2015 in new China data, and deployment of control technologies and retirement of older plants).

### Policy analysis and implications
- Post-tax fossil fuel subsidy measures summarize prevailing underpricing of fossil fuels and confirm substantial and pervasive underpricing across countries.
- Estimated subsidies are macroeconomically important and reforms generate large economic welfare gains.
- The composition of energy subsidies is likely to change: the appropriate value on carbon emissions will likely rise with increased Paris mitigation pledges, while underpricing for air pollution may decline with policies reducing local air emissions.
- Large overall fossil fuel subsidies are expected to persist for the foreseeable future.
- Policy constraints and heterogeneity:
  - Not all countries are willing or able to raise fossil fuel prices due to national circumstances, political economy constraints, or competitiveness concerns relative to comparator countries.
  - Some countries may prefer alternative policies that mimic behavioral responses to higher fuel prices without imposing a first-order tax burden on energy users (for example, combining taxes/subsidies on emissions-intensive versus non-emissions-intensive generators and on electricity-inefficient versus electricity-efficient products).
- Analytical caveats:
  - Estimates are a first-pass exercise with simplifications given broad country coverage.
  - Country authorities may have different perspectives on assumptions and parameter values.
  - Associated online analytical tools facilitate country-level sensitivity analysis and can encourage further refinement of country-level assessments of appropriate fossil fuel pricing, trade-offs with alternative instruments, and benefits from reform.

### Conclusion
- The update corroborates earlier findings of substantial underpricing of fossil fuels, quantifies large subsidy amounts and potential welfare gains from reform, and highlights sensitivity of outcomes to key parameters (notably fuel price elasticities, environmental damage valuations, and consumption).
- The analysis provides implicit efficient prices useful for designing alternative policy instruments and informing international and regional debates on coordination of energy price reform.

*Source: Authors’ calculations and text from the referenced chapter.*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### Climate policy, carbon pricing, and emissions
- Aldy, Joseph and others, 2016, “Economic Tools to Promote Transparency and Comparability in the Paris Agreement,” Nature Climate Change, Vol. 6, No. 11, pp. 1000-4. 
- Le Quéré, Corinne and others, 2018, “Global Carbon Budget 2017,” Earth System Science Data, Vol. 10, pp. 405-48. 
- Nordhaus, William, D., 2017, “Revisiting the Social Cost of Carbon,” Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114, pp. 1518-23.  
- Stern, Nicholas, and Joseph Stiglitz, 2017, “Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Pricing,” Paper of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition of the World Bank Group (Washington: World Bank Group). 
- World Bank Group, 2018, State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2018 (Washington: World Bank Group).  
- Tollefson, Jeff, 2018, “Carbon’s Future in Black and White,” Nature, Vol. 556, pp. 422-25.
- Keen, Michael, Ian Parry, and Jon Strand, 2013, “Ships, Planes, and Taxes: Charging for International Aviation and Maritime Emissions,” Economic Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 701-49. 

### Air pollution, health impacts, and valuation of mortality risk
- Burnett, Richard and others, 2013, “An Integrated Risk Function for Estimating the Global Burden of Disease Attributable to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Exposure,” Working paper, Health Canada, (Ottawa, Ontario). 
- Burnett, Richard and others, 2014, “An integrated risk function for estimating the global burden of disease attributable to ambient fine particulate matter exposure,” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 122, pp. 397–403. 
- Burnett, Richard and others, 2018, “Global Estimates of Mortality Associated with Long-Term Exposure to Outdoor Fine Particulate Matter,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 115, No. 38, pp. 9592-97.  
- Global Burden of Disease, 2016, “Measuring the Health-Related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: A Baseline Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015,” Global Burden of Disease, Lancet, Vol. 388, No. 10053, pp. 1813-50. 
- National Research Council (NRC), 2009, “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” National Research Council, National Academies (Washington). 
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2012, “Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies,” OECD Publishing (Paris). 
- Robinson, Lisa A., James K. Hammitt, and Lucy O’Keefe, 2018, “Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Global Cost Benefit Analysis,” Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Project, Working Paper No. 7.  
- Viscusi, W. Kip, and Clayton J. Masterman, 2017, “Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life,” Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 226-50. 
- World Health Organization (WHO), 2017, Global Health Estimates 2016 Summary Tables (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization). http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en. 
- World Health Organization (WHO), 2018, “Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality and Health,” (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization). www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health. 

### Energy subsidies, energy price reform, and related IMF work
- Charap, Joshua, Arthur Ribeiro da Silva, and Pedro Rodriguez, 2013, “Energy Subsidies and Energy Consumption—A Cross-Country Analysis,” IMF Working Paper No. 13/112, International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- Clements, Benedict, David Coady, Stefania Fabrizio, Sanjeev Gupta, Trevor Serge Coleridge Alleyne, Carlo A Sdralevich, eds., 2013, “Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications,” International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- Coady, David, Ian W.H. Parry, Louis Sears, and Baoping Shang, 2015, “How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies,” IMF Working Paper No. 15/105, International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- _____, Ian W.H. Parry and Baoping Shang, 2018, “Energy Price Reform: Lessons for Policymakers,” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 197-219. 
- International Monetary Fund, 2017, “If Not Now, When? Energy Price Reform in Arab Countries,” International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- International Monetary Fund, 2018, World Economic Outlook, International Monetary Fund (Washington). www.imf.org/weo. 
- Parry, Ian W.H., and Antonio M. Bento, 2000, “Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the “Double Dividend” Hypothesis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 39, pp. 67-96. 
- Parry, Ian W.H., Victor Mylonas, and Nate Vernon, 2017, “Mitigation Policies for the Paris Agreement: An Assessment for G20 Countries,” IMF Working Paper No. 18/193, International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- _____, Victor Mylonas, and Nate Vernon, 2018, “Reforming Energy Policy in India: Assessing the Options,” IMF Working Paper No. 17/103, International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- Parry, Ian W.H., Dirk Heine, Shanjun Li, and Eliza Lis, 2014, “Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice,” International Monetary Fund (Washington). 
- Zhang, Longmei, 2016, “Rebalancing in China––Progress and Prospects,” IMF Working Paper, No. 16/183, International Monetary Fund (Washington). 

### Methodology, technical support, and cross-sectoral analyses
- Diamond, Peter A., and James A. Mirrlees, 1971, “Optimal Taxation and Public Production I: Production Efficiency” and “II: Tax Rules,” American Economic Review Vol. 61, pp. 8–27, and 261-78. 
- Robinson, Lisa A., James K. Hammitt, and Lucy O’Keefe, 2018, “Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Global Cost Benefit Analysis,” Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Project, Working Paper No. 7.  
- U.S. Interagency Working Group (U.S. IAWG), 2016, Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (Washington). 

### International agencies, datasets, and statistical sources
- International Energy Agency (IEA), 2017, World Energy Outlook 2017, International Energy Agency (Paris, France). 
- International Energy Agency (IEA), 2018, World Energy Balances, International Energy Agency (Paris, France). 
- International Road Federation (IRF), 2017, World Road Statistics 2017, International Road Federation (Geneva, Switzerland).  
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2013, “Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fossil Fuels,” OECD Publishing (Paris, France). 
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2018, “OECD Companion to the Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels 2018,” OECD Publishing (Paris, France).  
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2017, The Emissions Gap Report 2017: A UN Environment Synthesis Report, UN Environment (Nairobi, Kenya).  

*Source: wpiea2019089 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2019/wpiea2019089.pdf_