Should Subsidies to Urban Passenger Transport be Increased? A Spatial CGE Analysis for a German Metropolitan Area

In many countries passenger transport is significantly subsidized in a variety of ways for various reasons. The objective of this paper is to examine efficiency, distributional, environmental (CO2 emissions) and spatial effects of increasing different kinds of passenger transport subsidies discriminating between household types, travel purposes and travel modes. The effects are calculated by applying a numerical spatial general equilibrium approach calibrated to an average German metropolitan area. In extension to most studies focusing on only one kind of subsidy, we compare the effects of different transport subsidies within the same unified framework that allows to account for two features not yet considered simultaneously in studies on transport subsidies: endogenous labor supply and location decisions. Furthermore, congestion, travel mode choice, travel related CO2 emissions and institutional details regarding the tax system in Germany are taken into account. The results suggest that optimal subsidy levels are either small or even zero. While subsidizing public transport is welfare enhancing, subsidies to urban road traffic reduce aggregate urban welfare. Concerning the latter it is shown that making investments in urban road infrastructure capacity or reducing gasoline taxes may even be harmful to residents using predominantly automobile. In contrast, pure commuting subsidies hardly affect aggregate urban welfare, but distributional effects are substantial. All policies cause suburbanization of city residents and (except for subsidizing public transport) contribute to urban sprawl by raising the spatial imbalance of residences and jobs but the effect is relatively small. In addition, the policies induce a very differentiated pattern regarding distributional effects, benefits of landowners and environmental effects

The Legacy of Critical Legal Thought and Transatlantic Endeavours

The following essay is the new introduction for a republication of the conference proceedings of the famous comparative legal theory conference, held in Bremen (Germany) in 1986, between scholars from the Law Schools at Bremen and the University of Wisconsin. The complete proceedings are now being made available - for the first time - online in the German Law Journal. The proceedings were originally published in 1989 in a much revered blue volume, by Nomos Publishing House in Baden-Baden, Germany. The conference had brought together leading figures in critical legal thought from both the United States and Germany for a series of discussions on the evolution of legal thought in both countries from the 19th century onwards into the present, reflecting on the roles of courts, parliaments, law schools, the profession and students in the shaping of legal culture. The conference occurred at a crucial time in the development of legal thought - and practice. The post-World War II social consensus and the welfare state had come under considerable pressure, law and economics had begun its journey to become the most influential \u27law & society\u27 movement, deep-reaching political transformations were under way, in the United Kingdom, the US and in Germany conservative administrations had taken the reign, and meanwhile the globalization of markets had begun to unfold at breathtaking speed. Yet, the Berlin Wall was still standing - just about.The new introduction offers reflections - and invites feedback - on the past, the future and the present of the 1986 project as seen from today\u27s perspective. In this new introduction, the two original conference conveners, David Trubek and Christian Joerges, are joined by Peer Zumbansen. The permission to prepare the original, not updated materials for online publication with the German Law Journal was generously granted by Nomos. The editorial responsibility for getting the issue into shape lay in the able hands of the GLJ Student Editorial Board at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and to all of these hardworking students go our sincerest thanks. We are also grateful to our authors, who stood by to answer all arising questions in the process of preparing this Symposium Issue