Tag: Fuel Taxation

Income Polarization and Climate Policy Backlash

Posted on February 2, 2026 | Policy Brief

20231201 The Impact of Rising Gasoline Prices Image 03

A recurring challenge for climate policy is political backlash. Over the last decade, we have seen prominent examples like the repeal of the carbon tax in Australia in 2014, the ‘Yellow Vests’ protest against the French carbon tax between 2018 and 2020, and the rollback of climate policy in the transport sector in Sweden between 2022 and 2024. A common argument put forward to explain this backlash is distributional concerns – that carbon and fuel taxes are regressive, disproportionately burdening low-income households. Yet, these prominent episodes often look like middle-class revolts. Studies find that the Yellow Vests supporters in France had ‘modest incomes’, but few came from the poorest deciles of the income distribution. Similarly, a study of Swedish fuel tax protesters found that they had relatively high incomes. This brief proposes a complementary explanation to regressivity: when the income distribution becomes more polarized – with stronger growth at both tails relative to the middle – the tax burden can shift toward the middle. A simple three-agent example illustrates how polarization can ‘squeeze’ the middle class, potentially undermining the durability of climate policy even when the poorest are compensated.

Climate Policy Backlash: Why “Not Just the Poor”?

Fuel and carbon taxes have repeatedly triggered political controversy and, in some cases, reversals. In France, the planned 2018 increase in the carbon tax became a focal point of the Yellow Vests protests. In Australia, the economy-wide carbon pricing introduced in 2012 was repealed just two years later. And in Sweden, the current government has reduced transport fuel taxes and the biofuel mandate to lower pump prices.

These episodes are often interpreted through the lens of tax progressivity (Douanne and Fabre 2022; Ewald et al. 2022): if energy and transport fuels are necessities, the tax-to-income burden can be higher for low-income households, with implications for policy stability. But the political patterns are frequently more complex. In France, many protesters were working or middle-class rather than poor (Dormagen et al. 2022). In Sweden, fuel tax protesters had, on average, relatively high incomes (Ewald et al. 2022), and households in the bottom third of the income distribution have no transport fuel expenditure at all, which weakens a simple “regressivity” narrative.

Figure 1. Share of Swedish households with zero transport fuel expenditure, by income decile.

Source: Household expenditure survey data 1999-2012 from Statistics Sweden.

This motivates the question: what if the distributional conflict that matters politically is not only bottom-versus-top, but, more importantly, concerns what happens to the middle class?

This brief introduces a three-agent model to show that under income polarization, the relative tax burden may shift to the middle. Traditional tax progressivity indices may fail to capture this shift as they weight different parts of the income distribution. At the same time, such a change is likely to have large implications for the political action and ultimately, the environmental policy design.

A Simple Model of Tax Burden Shifts

Consider an economy with three types of households: low-income (L), middle-income (M), and high-income (H). When a good like gasoline is taxed at a constant rate, each household’s tax burden depends on how much of their budget they spend on the taxed good; their ‘budget share.’

As incomes grow over time, these budget shares change. The direction of change depends on whether the taxed good is a necessity or a luxury. For necessities — goods where spending doesn’t keep pace with income growth — the budget share falls as income rises. For luxuries, the opposite occurs. The speed at which budget shares change over time is thus governed by two factors: how responsive spending is to income changes (the income elasticity), and each household’s income growth rate.

To track how tax burdens shift between different income groups, we can examine the relative changes in their budget shares. With three income groups, we need to make three comparisons: poor versus rich, poor versus middle, and middle versus rich. If the budget share falls faster for the relatively richer household in all three comparisons, the tax becomes more regressive. If it falls faster for the relatively poorer in all three comparisons, the tax becomes more progressive.

However, a third pattern is possible: the burden can shift in a ‘polarized’ way, where the middle class loses ground relative to both the poor and the rich. In this case, whether the tax is progressive or regressive is ambiguous – it depends on which comparison we prioritize in our social welfare function.

Polarization Squeezes the Middle

We use the example of income polarization to illustrate how this middle-squeeze can occur. Following Esteban and Ray (1994) and Wolfson (1994), we define income polarization as a situation where the middle group’s income grows more slowly than both the bottom and top groups. Under polarization, the middle class shrinks as a share of total income, while both the poor and rich expand their shares. Such income polarization has been well documented in the US and Europe (e.g., Goos et al. 2009; Autor 2022).

Table 1 shows a stylized numerical example of income polarization. Low- and high-income households have higher income growth compared to the middle, whose income share shrinks. Furthermore, gasoline is a necessity (in high-income countries), and we assume uniform income elasticities so that the budget share declines as income grows for all three income groups.

Table 1: Example of income polarization

What happens to relative tax burdens under these conditions? Because low-income households have the fastest income growth, their gasoline budget share falls the quickest. The middle class, with much slower income growth, sees its budget share fall more slowly. This means the middle class shoulders more of the tax burden relative to the poor.

Similarly, high-income households also experience faster income growth than the middle class, so their budget share also falls faster. Again, the middle class ends up shouldering more relative to the rich. The middle is thus ‘squeezed’ from both directions.

Importantly, when we compare the poor directly to the rich, the tax burden shifts in a progressive direction — the poor’s relative burden falls compared to the rich. Yet this ‘traditional’ progressive pattern masks the fact that the middle class is bearing an increasing share of the burden compared to everyone else.

The political implication is clear: when taxing a necessity under income polarization, the middle class can become relative losers even when the tax appears progressive in traditional comparisons between top and bottom. In this case, climate policy backlash would come from working and middle-class groups rather than the absolute poorest, and compensating mainly the poor may be insufficient for political durability.

What This Suggests for Climate policy design

The mechanism illustrated above does not deny that tax progressivity matters. Rather, it highlights an additional vulnerability: in a polarized economy, a carbon tax on necessities may face backlash when the middle class is squeezed. Three practical implications for climate policy design follow from this.

First, protecting the bottom is essential, but may not be sufficient for political durability if the middle becomes the relative ‘loser.’ The traditional focus in the economics literature on the political economy of climate policy and its potential distributional effects is on measures like revenue recycling (‘carbon dividends’) – especially to the poor – to counter regressivity. This compensation may be insufficient for policy stability, however, and targeted measures toward the middle class may be needed (such as a reduction in middle-income tax rates).

Second, backlash may potentially be lower when there are credible substitutes, thereby reducing the budget share of the taxed goods over time. If, for instance, the middle-class are relatively more dependent on private transport, compensatory policies aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable may reduce both the objective burden and the intensity of climate policy aversion.

Third, summary indices of tax progressivity — like the Kakwani (1977) and Suits (1977) indices — may obscure ‘middle-squeeze’ patterns. A useful complement to these summary measures would thus be to report incidence separately for bottom–middle and middle–top comparisons, and to track how polarization changes these margins over time.

References

  • Andersson, J. J., & Atkinson, G. (2025). The Progressivity of Gasoline Taxation: The Role of Income Inequality. Working Paper.
  • Autor, D. (2022).  The labor market impacts of technological change: From unbridled enthusiasm to qualified optimism to vast uncertainty. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Dormagen, J-Y., & Michel, L., & Reungoat, E. (2022).  United in diversity: Understanding what unites and what divides the Yellow Vests. French Politics, 20(3), 444–478.
  • Douenne, T., & Fabre, A. (2022).  Yellow vests, pessimistic beliefs, and carbon tax aversion. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(1): 81–110.
  • Esteban, J.-M., & Ray, D. (1994).  On the measurement of polarization. Econometrica, 62(4), 819–851.
  • Ewald, J., & Sterner, T., & Sterner, E. (2022).  Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters. Resource and Energy Economics, 70.
  • Goos, M., & Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2009).  Job polarization in Europe. American Economic Review, 99(2): 58-63.
  • Kakwani, N. C. (1977).  Measurement of tax progressivity: An international comparison. Economic Journal, 87(345), 71–80.
  • Suits, D. B. (1977).  Measurement of tax progressivity. American Economic Review, 67(4), 747–752.
  • Wolfson, M. C. (1994).  When inequalities diverge. American Economic Review, 84(2), 353–358.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Revisiting the Impact of Rising Gasoline Prices on Swedish Households

Posted on February 10, 2025 | Policy Brief

Scenic night view of Stockholm traffic with light trails, symbolizing the gasoline prices impact on Sweden’s transport sector.

Sweden has a long-standing tradition of fuel taxation, but recent shifts in transport policy have significantly altered the cost of driving. This policy brief examines the impact of gasoline tax cuts and reductions in biofuel mandates introduced between May 2022 and January 2024. These measures, alongside a drop in global crude oil prices, have led to a 34 percent decline in pump prices, bringing the cost of driving to one of its lowest levels in the past 25 years. Using a comparative analysis with Denmark, the brief quantifies the impact of the tax cuts and biofuel policy changes, showing how they kept fuel prices lower. However, these short-term financial benefits have broader implications. Lower gasoline taxes have increased household exposure to crude oil price volatility and slowed electric vehicle adoption, reversing progress toward Sweden’s long-term climate targets. Given these trade-offs, the brief argues for a reassessment of transport policies to balance affordability with long-term environmental sustainability.

The Cost of Driving in Sweden

Sweden has a long history of fuel taxation, having introduced an excise tax on gasoline in 1924. For over seventy years (1951–2021), the nominal tax rate steadily increased without significant reductions. This trend stopped in 2022, when the first of a series of tax cuts was implemented on May 1. This shift in transport policy came in response to a 60 percent surge in gasoline prices between early 2021 and mid-2022. This price spike was driven by pandemic-related supply-chain issues and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Moreover, the 2022 elections in Sweden, which brought a conservative coalition to power, further transformed transport policy, as the new government had campaigned on reducing pump prices.

In 2022, Celina Tippmann and I published two policy briefs on the impact of surging gasoline prices in Sweden. The first, titled The Impact of Rising Gasoline Prices on Swedish Households – Is This Time Different?, found that despite record-high real gasoline prices, driving was historically affordable due to improved fuel efficiency and rising real wages over the past three decades. The second brief, Who Benefitted from the Gasoline Tax Cut in Sweden?, examined Sweden’s first major gasoline tax cut in decades, implemented on May 1, 2022 in response to the surging price. We found that the tax cut was fully passed through to consumers but likely caused spill-over effects that raised gasoline prices in neighboring countries, shifting part of the burden onto their households.

In this brief, I analyze the developments since the May 2022 gasoline tax cut. This tax cut marked the beginning of significant changes to Sweden’s transport policies. While a part of the May tax cut was reversed by design (the majority of the 1.81 SEK (€0.17) per liter tax cut expired by October 2022), it was followed by the removal of subsidies for electric vehicles in November 2022 and additional tax cuts; one tax cut on January 1st, 2023, and a further reduction in gasoline tax rates on January 1st, 2024, alongside a lower biofuel mandate. Meanwhile, global crude oil prices dropped by more than a third since their June 2022 peak. Together, these changes have likely reduced the cost of driving using gasoline and diesel and created a relative cost advantage for vehicles with internal combustion engines.

Figure 1. Gasoline pump price: 2000-2024

A historical chart of Sweden’s gasoline prices impact, showing fuel price trends from 2000 to 2025 in real SEK per liter.

Source: Monthly data on gasoline prices are provided by Drivkraft Sverige (2025).

Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic price movements over the last couple of years. After the sharp increase in gasoline prices from early 2021 to mid-2022, the subsequent drop has been equally dramatic. Since June 2022, pump prices have fallen by 34 percent, bringing real gasoline prices just below the 25-year average of 15 SEK per liter.

Figure 2. Gasoline expenditure per 100 km

Source: Trafikverket (2022) and Drivkraft Sverige (2025).

Furthermore, the recent drop in driving costs is even more dramatic if we factor in improvements in average fuel efficiency over time. New vehicles sold in Sweden today can drive 50 percent further on a liter of gasoline compared to the year 2000. Accounting for this, Figure 2 shows that the cost of driving is now 20 percent below the average cost over the last 25 years.

Lastly, real wage growth has further enhanced the affordability of driving. Since 1991, average real wages in Sweden have risen by nearly 60 percent. As a result, the cost of driving, measured as a share of income, has steadily declined. Figure 3 shows a temporary increase in driving costs in 2022, but today, households spend less than 40 percent of their hourly wage to drive 100 kilometers – a near-historic low.

Figure 3. Cost of driving as share of income

Source: Data on average hourly real wages are provided by Statistics Sweden (2025).

The Cost in the Counterfactual Scenario

While Figures 1–3 show the evolution of driving costs, they do not isolate the impact of recent transport policies. The causal effect of the tax cuts and changes to the biofuel mandate hinges on the pass-through rate to consumers and how much of the benefit of the policy changes has been captured by producers. In addition, we need to separate the price change that is due to policy changes from the part that is due to the falling crude oil price.

Two strategies are available to estimate the pass-through rate to households. The first involves using price elasticities of demand and supply for gasoline, where the relatively inelastic side captures most of the benefit from a tax reduction (Andersson and Tippmann, 2022). However, the unusual conditions in the gasoline market over the past few years – characterized by supply restrictions from underinvestment during the pandemic, sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, and shifts in consumer travel behavior – have made elasticity estimates from historical data less reliable for assessing tax incidence today.

The second approach involves a comparative analysis, examining the evolution of gasoline pump prices in Sweden against those in a ”twin“ country – one similar to Sweden but unaffected by recent transport fuel policy changes. This is the method I adopt in this brief. A benefit of using a comparative analysis is that the crude oil price is not a confounder as it affects the gasoline price in the comparison country equally. I selected Denmark as the comparison unit due to its geographical proximity, socio-economic similarity, and minimal changes to gasoline tax rates over the past two and a half years (Drivkraft Danmark, 2025).

Figure 4. Gasoline pump price 2022-2024

Graph comparing the gasoline prices impact in Sweden and Denmark from 2022 to 2024, showing effects of tax changes on fuel costs.

Note: Gasoline prices in Sweden and Denmark are provided by CirkleK (2025). Daily exchange rates are provided by Riksbanken (2025). The horizontal lines indicate the four tax changes over the sample period.

Figure 4 shows that nominal gasoline prices in Sweden and Denmark closely tracked each other until the first tax cut on May 1, 2022. Following the tax cut, Sweden’s prices fell by an amount roughly equivalent to the tax cut. When part of this initial tax reduction was reversed on October 1, 2022, the price gap narrowed before widening again due to a new tax cut on January 1, 2023. The gap widened further at the start of 2024 with another tax cut and a reduction in the biofuel mandate (biofuel is typically much more expensive than crude oil). In total, the pump price in Sweden fell by more than 3 SEK relative to the counterfactual scenario. With a full pass-through of the tax cuts to consumers, approximately half of this reduction is attributed to the tax cuts, with the other half resulting from the reduced biofuel mandate (Andersson and Tippman, 2022).

It may seem surprising that a reduction of the biofuel mandate from 7.8 percent to 6 percent has such a significant impact on the pump price in Sweden. However, one needs to account for the indirect effect on the price of biofuel itself from a reduction in its demand. Sweden also reduced its biofuel mandate for diesel, from 30.5 percent to 6 percent, a far more drastic cut. Together, these reductions significantly lowered biofuel demand, likely driving down biofuel prices in the market and amplifying their impact on pump prices.

Conclusion

The cost of driving in Sweden is at a historic low. Over the past two and a half years, tax cuts and reductions in the biofuel mandate have significantly lowered pump prices, with the benefits passed directly to consumers. Compared to a scenario with no policy changes, Swedish households now enjoy drastically reduced costs at the pump. However, these short-term benefits come with a long-term risk that warrant careful consideration.

In our first policy brief in 2022, Celina Tippmann and I cautioned that reducing gasoline tax rates could encourage households to purchase less fuel-efficient vehicles, leaving them more vulnerable to future crude oil price spikes. Previously, excise taxes – comprising more than half of Sweden’s pump price – acted as a buffer against global oil price volatility. Lower fuel taxes now mean crude oil prices make up a larger share of the pump price, increasing price volatility and household exposure to market fluctuations.

Emerging evidence suggests that households are responding to the latest policy changes as anticipated. In 2024, the share of electric vehicles in new car sales dropped for the first time in years, from 38.7 percent to 35 percent, while average carbon emissions from new vehicles increased by 5 percent (Mobility Sweden, 2025), breaking a long-run downwards trend. This reversal of progress in emissions reductions makes achieving Sweden’s 2030 climate target – a 70 percent reduction in transport sector carbon emissions relative to 2010 – significantly more challenging.

While the election campaign promise from the conservative coalition of reducing gasoline prices may have been politically and electorally effective, its consequences on the transport market are becoming clearer. Swedish households have become more vulnerable to crude oil price volatility as they are buying less fuel-efficient vehicles, and progress toward emission reduction goals has stalled. As such, it is time for a more ambitious climate policy in the transport sector. Sweden should consider reintroducing higher gasoline tax rates and strengthening financial support for electric vehicle adoption. These measures would help balance the affordability of driving with the urgent need to meet climate objectives.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.