As can be seen from Figure 2, relatively speaking (as percentage of GDP), the Nordic countries are in the lower end, although the amounts spent are still substantial, especially if considered per household, and may therefore have non-negligible distributional and climate/environmental impacts.
Since the compensation measures have very recently been implemented (and many of them also revised over the last two years) it is methodologically challenging to evaluate their effects. In principle, the effects of the compensation measures are the difference between the effects in the period from introduction of the measure, and the effects in a hypothetical (reference) trajectory without the measure in place. To get a “clean” estimate of these effects, one would need either an experimental (or quasi experimental) situation where e.g., one geographical area has experienced a measure, and another (similar in all other aspects) at one point in time has not. Alternatively, that the same area for some time has experienced a measure and later (and/or before) has not. Under such circumstances it is possible to identify, by use of econometric techniques, the causal effect of the measure on the distributional profile (equity) and on climate policy outcomes. If there are no such experimental conditions, the alternative is macro-economic modelling of the effects through the economy. In such cases, one can study both hypothetical and actual policy measures, but with relatively high uncertainty. We limit ourselves to a few observations from international studies that have attempted to assess the impact of energy prices and compensation measures across several countries before we proceed to look more specifically at the measures implemented in the Nordic countries. Some of the lessons from the international literature are also relevant in the Nordic context.
The impacts of energy prices and of resulting compensation measures depend on several factors, e.g., for households their share of energy costs compared to other expenditures. They will also depend on the design of the compensation measures. A global study of 116 countries found that the energy price crisis increased energy costs by 63–113 percent on average, resulting in increased household expenditures of 2.7–4.8 percent, and around 78–141 million people potentially pushed into extreme poverty (Guan et al., 2023). In Europe, Steckel et al. (2022) found that the impact of the energy price crisis on households is highly heterogenous. For example, they found that it affects low- and middle-income households more than high-income households, relative to their total expenditures (i.e. regressive impact). Furthermore, results show that the poorest 40 percent of households with high energy costs are particularly affected, and that ca. 11 million inhabitants (2.6 percent of all households) would require at least 50 percent of their current expenditures to compensate for increasing energy prices, while ca. 48 million inhabitants (11.5 percent of all households) would need 25 percent of current expenditures in compensation. A large and more recent assessment based on a microsimulation model of Europe confirms the large, regressive impact of the energy crisis on households in Europe (IEEP, 2023). Menyhert (2022) found that the adverse social effects of inflation are significantly larger in many Central and Eastern European Member States, and that energy price increases not only potentially increase inequality within countries but also between EU15 and non-EU15 countries.
The bulk of the resources used for energy price compensation in Figure 2, have been general price-suppressing schemes for everybody, dampening the effect of energy prices. This is expensive and if not designed in a progressive way, would do little to alleviate the unequal burden of the high energy prices. In addition, such schemes reduce incentives for saving on energy and investing in energy saving measures and, hence, delay the necessary green transition. Therefore, an unequivocal conclusion from the studies referenced above, and other studies (e.g. Ari et al., 2022 and European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, 2023), is to design such schemes so that they target those who need it the most, while generally maintaining price signals for everybody to reduce energy use.
1.4 Outline of the report and reader guide
The report is organised as follows. Chapter 2 explains the overall approach to our assessment of Nordic compensation measures. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the policy measures that have been implemented in the Nordic countries, details in Appendix. Chapters 4–7 assess a selection of measures in each of the Nordic countries. Chapter 8 synthesises the results and lessons from the Nordic countries, to derive some knowledge about how such (future) measures could be better designed to achieve more desirable societal and environmental outcomes.