WEKO3
アイテム
Revenue-recycling within Transport Networks
https://doi.org/10.24545/00000989
https://doi.org/10.24545/000009899445ae84-ecef-48fb-a467-76400c6bcc35
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
DP08-07 (139.4 kB)
|
|
| Item type | ディスカッションペーパー / Discussion Paper(1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2008-08-01 | |||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||
| タイトル | Revenue-recycling within Transport Networks | |||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||
| 言語 | eng | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | Congestion tax | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | Revenue-recycling | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | Road pricing | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | Transport Network | |||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||
| 主題 | Cost-benefit analysis | |||||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||||
| 資源タイプ | technical report | |||||||
| ID登録 | ||||||||
| ID登録 (DOI) | 10.24545/00000989 | |||||||
| ID登録タイプ | JaLC | |||||||
| 著者 |
KIDOKORO, Yukihiro
× KIDOKORO, Yukihiro
|
|||||||
| 著者別名 | ||||||||
| 識別子Scheme | WEKO | |||||||
| 識別子 | 6175 | |||||||
| 姓名 | 城所, 幸弘 | |||||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||||
| 著者所属 | ||||||||
| 値 | 政策研究大学院大学 / National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies | |||||||
| 分野 | ||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||||
| 内容記述 | 経済学 / Economics | |||||||
| 抄録 | ||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||
| 内容記述 | This paper analyzes the second-best pricing and investment policy for transport networks with a revenue-recycling mechanism in which the toll revenue is used as transport investments or subsidies, as in London’s congestion charging scheme. The results of this paper demonstrate that the way toll revenue is used significantly modifies the usual results, where a lump-sum transfer is assumed. First, revenue-recycling as investment has an effect that works to increase the second-best toll when the benefits from it are larger than the costs. Revenue-recycling as a subsidy does not have such an effect. Second, ‘partial’ cost–benefit analysis that focuses only on the targeted transport mode would usually lead to a false conclusion as to whether the toll revenues should be used as transport investments, subsidies, or general tax revenues. The ‘full’ cost–benefit analysis, which includes changes in consumer surplus and producer surplus in all transport modes, is necessary. | |||||||
| 内容記述 | ||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||||
| 内容記述 | JEL Classification Codes: R41, R42, R48, L91 | |||||||
| 発行年 | ||||||||
| 値 | 2008-08 | |||||||
| 書誌情報 |
en : GRIPS Discussion Papers Report No. DP08-07, 発行日 2008-08-01 |
|||||||
| 出版者 | ||||||||
| 出版者 | GRIPS Policy Research Center | |||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||
| 関連サイト | ||||||||
| 関連タイプ | isIdenticalTo | |||||||
| 識別子タイプ | URI | |||||||
| 関連識別子 | https://ideas.repec.org/p/ngi/dpaper/08-07.html | |||||||
| 関連名称 | https://ideas.repec.org/p/ngi/dpaper/08-07.html | |||||||
| 著者情報 | ||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Other | |||||||
| 内容記述 | https://www.grips.ac.jp/list/jp/facultyinfo/kidokoro_yukihiro/ | |||||||
