The fuel discount, a "low efficiency" aid that "benefits high incomes"

The discount of 20 cents per liter on fuel that the Government put into operation on Friday of last week to reduce the impact of the energy crisis on citizens is inefficient aid, according to the report 'The Ukraine War in Spain: impacts and policies', published by EsadeEcPol.

In addition, it benefits the highest incomes more, points out this document.

"We anticipate that this measure will be excessively costly for

," denounces the study, which also warns that "it will benefit households with higher incomes more."

Likewise, it criticizes the costs and difficulties that it has entailed for small companies, the insufficiency of supervision and punishment mechanisms and an approach that slows down the energy transition towards renewable sources.

Natalia Collado

, economist at EsadeEcPol and co-author of the report, explains in conversation with EL MUNDO that "given the limited fiscal margin we have, it would be much more efficient to have made more specific aid; to the most affected sectors and to the vulnerable population."

In this sense, she recalls that it is possible that the situation will continue and that the three months of application of the discount will have to be extended... That she, in her opinion,

given the case.

"You will have to think in those terms, because otherwise it will be unsustainable from the point of view of government revenue and spending."

The problem is that, as the tool is focused, it does not benefit everyone equally.

Thus, although EsadeEcPol recognizes that "the magnitude of the shock requires a decisive response to limit the impact on citizens", this generalized subsidy approach "does not seem the best option given its distributive effects".

Specifically, they detail that more than 70% of households in the first income decile do not consume fuel, while this percentage falls to 20% in the last decile.

In addition, in the case of those who do use fuel, the expense allocated to them "grows significantly with income."

a greater extent

.

Help, therefore, should not come through gas stations, but more precisely: scalpel versus broadbrush.

"You could have applied direct aid or subsidies for the most vulnerable families," describes Collado, who puts the Income campaign, through personal income tax, or through the Minimum Vital Income, as more equitable examples.

The latter, in fact, was also the object of the Government's measures, which, the report breaks down, also misses the mark with its decisions.

Despite the fact that households with lower income allocate a much higher proportion of their family budget to paying for energy -electricity and gas, in this case- than the rest of the households, and although the measure is progressive, their "low coverage" can that families without resources

of it.

“It must be remembered that, of the 2.3 million people that the Government quantified (with data prior to the pandemic), as potential beneficiaries of the IMV, just under a million currently receive it according to recent statements by Minister Escrivá,” he points out. The document.

Inequality also comes from another aspect: the

one .

Experts consider that subsidizing fuel encourages its consumption just at a time when both Spain and the rest of the EU are in a process of energy transition towards renewable energies.

We are in an exceptional context, but, again, direct aid would have been more consistent with the Government's objectives: "They are more appropriate, because they are aimed at those who need it most without affecting the rest of the population," describes Collado.

It should be remembered that the price of oil is determined in international markets - "we, who are not producers, can do little in an international market," laments Collado - and the measures, therefore, can only try to limit the impact.

In this sense, the expert considers that the Government's response was "the most agile, most visible and fastest and most widespread option".

The Executive could boast of an almost immediate and tangible discount:

.

No percentages and no hassle for the end user, beyond the problems of the first day of application.

This "very little margin", which the sector has already criticized for having to advance the discount out of pocket, is also reproached by the report.

"The companies in the sector, especially the smaller or independent ones, will have a greater difficulty in meeting the established advances," they denounce.

"Furthermore, their pricing systems are not computerized enough, making an agile implementation more complicated," as was seen on a Friday in which many stations were unable to issue invoices, for example.

It also transmits improvisation, it is clear from the document, the inability to

in case the discount is not applied correctly.

"If the CNMC already has to carry out the task of reviewing competition in this market, where it is scarce, if you also force part of this market to subsidize the price, it can have effects on the rest of the gas stations," Collado describes. .

"Supervising the 11,000 Spanish gas stations is complicated; it has a very high implementation cost."

In any case, the report does recognize the importance of taking measures, since the impact of the energy crisis is high: for every ten dollars that the price of a barrel of oil increases, the European economy may fall by 0.4%, while the ECB raises it to one point of GDP.

In any case, the report stresses that "the primary objective of the package of measures is not necessarily to attack inflation, but something more prosaic: to stop the rise in the CPI."

"Although it may have a real effect on the evolution of prices, what is sought is to cut the connection between energy prices and the CPI in view of the fact that revaluations are going to arrive in these months."

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

• Petroleum

• GDP

• personal income tax

• Gasoline