Abstract
Since the mid-2010s, many governments have pledged to reduce their subsidies for fossil fuels. Yet, it is unclear whether these reforms have been implemented, with prior studies showing conflicting results. Here we collect original monthly data on the 21 countries with the largest gasoline subsidies in the 2003–2015 period and evaluate their reform efforts from 2016 to 2023. Since 2016, there has been an increase in the frequency and ambition of subsidy reforms but a drop in their durability: just 30% of the reforms survived for 12 months, and only 9% survived for 36 months. Subsidies rose for 12 countries in our sample and were virtually unchanged in the other 9. This pattern calls into question the effectiveness of recent strategies for reducing fossil fuel subsidies.
Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Learn more
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Learn more
Buy this article
Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Log in
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Read our FAQs
Contact customer support
Fig. 1: Incidence and duration of fuel subsidy reforms, 2000–2023.
Fig. 2: Reform failure due to backsliding or erosion.
Fig. 3: Gasoline taxes and subsidies, 2000–2023.
Data availability
The fossil fuel subsidy data supporting the findings of this study are available via the Harvard DataVerse at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/80JO6T.
Code availability
The code to replicate all findings of this study is available via Code Ocean at https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.8539725.v1.
References
Davis, L. W. The economic cost of global fuel subsidies. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 581–85 (2014).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Rentschler, J. & Bazilian, M. Reforming fossil fuel subsidies: drivers, barriers and the state of progress. Clim. Policy 17, 891–914 (2017).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Charap, M. J., da Silva, M. A. R. & Rodriguez, M. P. C. Energy Subsidies and Energy Consumption: A Cross-Country Analysis. Working Paper No.13/112 (International Monetary Fund, 2013).
Erickson, P. et al. Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter. Nature 578, E1–E4 (2020).
ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
Black, M. S., Liu, A. A., Parry, I. W. & Vernon, N. IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data: 2023 Update (International Monetary Fund, 2023).
Steadman, S., Gençsü, I., Mustapha, S., Colenbrander, S. & Tyson, J. Indebted: How to Support Countries Heavily Reliant on Oil and Gas Revenues to Secure Long-Term Prosperity (Overseas Development Institute, 2023).
Natalini, D., Bravo, G. & Newman, E. Fuel riots: definition, evidence and policy implications for a new type of energy-related conflict. Energy Policy 147, 111885 (2020).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
von Uexkull, N., Rød, E. G. & Svensson, I. Fueling protest? Climate change mitigation, fuel prices and protest onset. World Dev. 177, 106536 (2024).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Van de Graaf, T. & Blondeel, M. in The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform (eds Skovgaard, J. & van Asselt, H.) Ch. 1 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).
Skovgaard, J. The Economisation of Climate Change: How the G20, the OECD and the IMF Address Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Climate Finance (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Elliott, C., Bernstein, S. & Hoffmann, M. Credibility dilemmas under the Paris Agreement: explaining fossil fuel subsidy reform references in INDCs. Int. Environ. Agreem. 22, 735–759 (2022).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, L., Wooders, P., Mostafa, M. & Bechauf, R. 53 Ways to Reform Fossil Fuel Consumer Subsidies and Pricing (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2020).
Muta, T. & Erdogan, M. The Global Energy Crisis Pushed Fossil Fuel Consumption Subsidies to an All-Time High in 2022 (International Energy Agency, 2023).
Kojima, M. & Koplow, D. Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Approaches and Valuation. Policy Research Working Paper 7220 (World Bank, 2015).
Ross, M. L., Hazlett, C. & Mahdavi, P. Global progress and backsliding on gasoline taxes and subsidies. Nat. Energy 2, 16201 (2017).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Alvarez, C. B., Hazlett, C., Mahdavi, P. & Ross, M. L. Political leadership has limited impact on fossil fuel taxes and subsidies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2208024119 (2022).
ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
Van de Graaf, T. Is OPEC dead? Oil exporters, the Paris Agreement and the transition to a post-carbon world. Energy Res. Social Sci. 23, 182–188 (2017).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
van den Bergh, J. C. & Savin, I. Political leadership, climate policy, and renewable energy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2301291120 (2023).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Vieites, Y., Andretti, B., Weiss, M., Jacob, J. & Hallack, M. Effectively communicating the removal of fossil energy subsidies: evidence from Latin America. Glob. Environ. Change 81, 102690 (2023).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kubinec, R. & Milner, H. V. Taxes in the time of revolution: an experimental test of the rentier state during Algeria’s Hirak. World Politics 76, 294–333 (2024).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Inchauste, G. & Victor, D. G. The Political Economy of Energy Subsidy Reform (The World Bank, 2017).
Skovgaard, J. & van Asselt, H. The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).
Kyle, J. Local corruption and popular support for fuel subsidy reform in Indonesia. Comp. Polit. Stud. 51, 1472–1503 (2018).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Harring, N., Jönsson, E., Matti, S., Mundaca, G. & Jagers, S. C. Cross-national analysis of attitudes towards fossil fuel subsidy removal. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 244–249 (2023).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Beblawi, H. & Luciani, G. The Rentier State (Routledge, 1990).
Ross, M. L. The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations (Princeton Univ. Press, 2012).
Hertog, S. The political economy of distribution in the Middle East: is there scope for a new social contract? Dev. Policy 88, 88–113 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bates, R. H. Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Univ. California Press, 1981).
Kim, S. E. & Urpelainen, J. Democracy, autocracy and the urban bias: evidence from petroleum subsidies. Polit. Stud. 64, 552–572 (2016).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Myint, M., Seong, J. & Aliyev, S. Energy Sector: Myanmar Infrastructure Monitoring. Policy Research Working Paper 170200 (The World Bank, 2022).
Anyaogu, I. Nigerian gasoline prices soar as shortages worsen cost of living. Reuters (2024); https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerian-gasoline-prices-soar-shortages-worsen-cost-living-crisis-2024-04-30/
Nigeria: Post-financing Assessment Discussions (International Monetary Fund, 2024).
Axsen, J., Plötz, P. & Wolinetz, M. Crafting strong, integrated policy mixes for deep CO2 mitigation in road transport. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 809–818 (2020).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Breetz, H., Mildenberger, M. & Stokes, L. The political logics of clean energy transitions. Bus. Politics 20, 492–522 (2018).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Beiser-McGrath, L. F., Bernauer, T. & Prakash, A. Command and control or market-based instruments? Public support for policies to address vehicular pollution in Beijing and New Delhi. Environ. Politics 32, 586–618 (2023).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Parry, I., Black, M. S. & Vernon, N. Still Not Getting Energy Prices Right: A Global and Country Update of Fossil Fuel Subsidies (International Monetary Fund, 2021).
Cheon, A., Urpelainen, J. & Lackner, M. Why do governments subsidize gasoline consumption? An empirical analysis of global gasoline prices, 2002–2009. Energy Policy 56, 382–390 (2013).
ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fails, M. D. What types of political regimes subsidize fuel consumption? Extr. Ind. Soc. 9, 101037 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mahdavi, P., Martinez-Alvarez, C. B. & Ross, M. L. Why do governments tax or subsidize fossil fuels? J. Politicshttps://doi.org/10.1086/719272 (2022).
Clements, B. J. et al. Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications (International Monetary Fund, 2013).
Download references
Acknowledgements
We thank J. Cameron for her valuable research assistance. We received helpful feedback following presentations at the University of California Santa Barbara, the University of California Berkeley, the University of Notre Dame, the US Agency for International Development, the 2023 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association and the 2023 meeting of the International Political Science Association in Buenos Aires.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Department of Political Science, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management (by courtesy), University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Paasha Mahdavi
Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Michael L. Ross & Evelyn Simoni
Authors
Paasha Mahdavi
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
2. Michael L. Ross
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
3. Evelyn Simoni
View author publications
You can also search for this author inPubMedGoogle Scholar
Contributions
P.M. and M.L.R. conceptualized the study and oversaw data collection. E.S. performed the data analysis and interpretation of the results. M.L.R. led the manuscript writing. All authors contributed equally to reviewing and editing the manuscript and approved the final version.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Paasha Mahdavi or Michael L. Ross.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Climate Change thanks Federica Genovese, Jakob Skovgaard and Thijs Van de Graaf for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Combined figures of the case of Nigeria.
Panels a, b, and c show the price paid by consumers over time. a, The price in current Nigerian Naira. b, The price denominated in current US dollars, which reveals the effects of changes in the value of the currency. c, The price in constant 2015 US dollars, which accounts for the additional effects of inflation. d, The value of the per-liter implicit tax or subsidy measured with the price-gap method. e, The onset of price reforms. f, The periods of fixity reform for which Nigeria implemented floating prices.
Extended Data Fig. 2
Periods of Fixity Reform.
Extended Data Fig. 3
Increases of Monthly Prices Above 10 percent.
Extended Data Fig. 4
Increases of Quarterly Prices Above 25 percent.
Extended Data Fig. 5
Survival Estimates for Price Reform 25 percent, 2000-2015 vs 2016-2023.
Extended Data Fig. 6
Sensitivity Analysis: Kaplan-Meier survival rate of all subsidy reforms before (dashed orange) and after (solid blue) December 2014.
Extended Data Fig. 7
Leave Out Analysis. Pre and Post 2016.
Extended Data Fig. 8
Leave Out Analysis. Fixity versus Price Reforms.
Extended Data Fig. 9
Daily oil price volatility, 2000-2023. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration: ‘Europe Brent Spot Price FOB’.
Extended Data Table 1 Comparison of Oil Volatility in 2000-2015 versus 2016-2023
Full size table
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Cite this article
Mahdavi, P., Ross, M.L. & Simoni, E. Fossil fuel subsidy reforms have become more fragile. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02283-4
Download citation
Received:24 September 2024
Accepted:18 February 2025
Published:26 March 2025
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02283-4
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Get shareable link
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative