from Energy Security and Climate Change Program and Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Sustaining Fuel Subsidy Reform

October 18, 2016

Report

Overview

Fuel consumption subsidies threaten the fiscal and economic health of countries around the world. Economists widely agree that the subsidies, which reduce consumer prices for petroleum and natural gas below free-market prices, often strain government budgets, fail to target poverty efficiently, and distribute benefits unfairly. Yet, political barriers often obstruct practical policy changes; for example, the prospect of street protest discourages sensible subsidy reform. Still, over the last two years, governments around the world have taken advantage of the plunge in oil prices and reduced or eliminated subsidies. Recognizing that low oil prices can mitigate the increase in consumer bills caused by subsidy reform, ten countries have, since 2014, completely eliminated subsidies on at least one type of fuel, and a further twelve countries have reduced subsidies. This advances U.S. economic, geopolitical, and environmental goals because subsidy reform can reduce world oil prices, instability in strategically important countries, and wasteful use of fossil fuels, which contributes to climate change. In particular, recent reforms in India, Indonesia, Ukraine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria all bring strategic benefits to the United States.

Varun Sivaram
Varun Sivaram

Philip D. Reed Fellow for Science and Technology

Jennifer M. Harris
Jennifer M. Harris

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

Recent reforms may not be permanent, however. Past fuel subsidy reforms have often come undone when prices rose or when reform-minded leaders fell. Varun Sivaram and Jennifer M. Harris, reviewing the historical record, reveal three ways governments have reinforced reforms against backsliding: by depoliticizing fuel prices and transferring control over prices to independent regulators, who enforce the link between domestic and international prices; by preempting popular discontent and rapidly demonstrating tangible economic benefits from reform; and by locking in partial subsidy reforms with subsequent reforms as they pursued long-term strategies to eliminate all fuel subsidies and liberalize their energy sectors. The United States can help countries reinforce their reforms, and the authors make recommendations for how U.S. policymakers should do so. Where it has strong relationships, the United States should prioritize reform durability at the highest political levels. In addition, the United States, acting through institutions such as the World Bank, should provide financial support for a limited period of time that creates a path for countries to consolidate their reforms. Finally, the United States and international partners should create aid packages that reward long-term reform over decades; they should also drive private investment into the energy sectors of countries that have reformed fuel subsidies to support broader energy sector liberalization. 

Selected Figures From This Report

More on:

Energy and Climate Policy

Economics

Fossil Fuels

Renewable Energy

Countries That Initiated Petroleum and/or Natural Gas Subsidy Reform 2014-2016


Geographic Distribution of Countries That Initiated Petroleum and/or Natural Gas Subsidy Reform 2014-2016


Selected Fuel Subsidy Reforms From 2014 to 2016

More on:

Energy and Climate Policy

Economics

Fossil Fuels

Renewable Energy

Top Stories on CFR

Health

This interactive examines how nationwide bans on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, as proposed by the Biden administration on April 28, 2022, could help shrink the racial gap on U.S. lung cancer death rates.

Japan

Sheila Smith, the John E. Merow senior fellow for Asia-Pacific studies at the Council, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the reasoning behind Japan’s new defense strategy and the Japanese government’s decision to double defense spending.

United States

In addition to minority communities and those on the political left, far-right and white supremacist extremism threatens violence against institutions conservatives cherish as well, such as the U.S. military.