Fiscal policy and energy price shocks

In this analysis, we examine the heterogeneous welfare effects of various crisis relief programs, financed either through distortionary taxes or public debt. To provide a quantitative evaluation of the 2022 energy crisis, we compare the performance of targeted and untargeted transfers and energy price subsidies while considering different financing schemes within a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model calibrated to the German economy. Our results show that no single measure can resolve the underlying trade-offs. In terms of welfare, low-income and high- income households prefer different policies and financing schemes. Low-income households prefer debt-financed instruments, as these help them smooth consumption in response to the energy price shock. In contrast, high-income households strongly prefer tax-financed interventions. Our analysis highlights the importance of labor market effects and explicitly assessing welfare. • During a major energy price shock, key policy goals are in conflict. • No single policy dampens a recession, saves energy, and prevents energy poverty. • Tax vs. debt financing significantly impacts welfare. • Welfare evaluation is crucial; GDP effects don’t reflect energy savings or energy poverty.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energy Policy
Published
2026-02-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2026.115149
Primary Topic
Global Energy Security and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Fiscal policy and energy price shocks

Nikolaj Moretti, M Kalkuhl, Ulrich Eydam, Maik Heinemann et al.
Energy Policy
Global Energy Security and Policy
article

Fiscal policy and energy price shocks

Nikolaj Moretti, M Kalkuhl, Ulrich Eydam, Maik Heinemann, Alkis Blanz
article en

Abstract

In this analysis, we examine the heterogeneous welfare effects of various crisis relief programs, financed either through distortionary taxes or public debt. To provide a quantitative evaluation of the 2022 energy crisis, we compare the performance of targeted and untargeted transfers and energy price subsidies while considering different financing schemes within a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model calibrated to the German economy. Our results show that no single measure can resolve the underlying trade-offs. In terms of welfare, low-income and high- income households prefer different policies and financing schemes. Low-income households prefer debt-financed instruments, as these help them smooth consumption in response to the energy price shock. In contrast, high-income households strongly prefer tax-financed interventions. Our analysis highlights the importance of labor market effects and explicitly assessing welfare. • During a major energy price shock, key policy goals are in conflict. • No single policy dampens a recession, saves energy, and prevents energy poverty. • Tax vs. debt financing significantly impacts welfare. • Welfare evaluation is crucial; GDP effects don’t reflect energy savings or energy poverty.

Energy PolicyVol. 212
Leipzig University of Applied Sciences (DE), University of Potsdam (DE), Leibniz Association (DE), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), Leipzig University (DE)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Global Energy Security and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.