Die Armen zahlen mehr - auch für Energie (ein Nachtrag zu Scherls Beitrag in ZVP, 2, 1978/2)

Abstract

Untersuchungen über die Struktur des privaten Energieverbrauchs in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ergeben, dass einkommensschwache Haushalte durchgängig mehr bezahlen für dieselben Energieträger als Haushalte mit höherem Einkommen. Darüber hinaus lässt sich zeigen, dass sie mehr aufwenden müssen für dieselbe "Energiequalität", sebst wenn man gleiche Preise am Markt unterstellt. Die Gründe dafür liegen in der relativ ungünstigeren haushaltstechnischen Ausstatttung und in institutionellen Benachteiligungen einkommensschwacher Haushalte. Auf der anderen Seite beanspruchen einkommensschwache Haushalte mehr Primärenergie für die Bereitstellung gleicher Dienstleistungen im Haushalt: sie kosten die Volkswirtschaft mehr und belasten die Umwelt stärker als bessergestellte Haushalte.

Not only do low-income groups have less money to spend, they also get less for it than higher-income families. Ölander and Scherl, among others, have discussed such a relationship between income level and "buying efficiency" (Olander), as measured by the price-amount-quality ratio realized for a given commodity. However, as Scherl concluded, there is almost no "conclusive direct empirical proof" for this income effect, neither in the U.S.A. nor in the Federal Republic of Germany. A study on patterns of household energy consumption in West Germany strongly supports the hypothesis for this area of consumption. It can be shown that (a) high and low-income households pay different prices for the same amounts of secondary energy (kinds of energy bought by households); (b) high and low-income households pay different prices for the same quality of secondary energy (thermal content of secondary energy), even if equal prices for different kinds of energy are assumed; (c) high and low-income households pay different prices for the same quality of useful energy (thermal content of effectively used energy), even if equal prices for different kinds of energy and for the same quality of secondary energy are assumed. The discussion of variables intervening between income and the efficiency of energy consumption emphasises a number of technical and institutional factors associated with income. Technical and institutional factors shaping consumption patterns deserve more attention than they have been accorded hitherto in consumer energy research, and possibly in other areas of consumption, too. The importance of these factors suggests that conventional instruments and strategies of consumer policy, concentration on the middle-class consumer and on consumer information, may be insufficient, at least in the case of energy consumption and conservation. Finally, the hypothesis is put forward, and some supporting data for domestic energy consumption are provided, that the social costs of consumption are inversely related to income. It is argued that greater emphasis of consumer policy on improving directly the lot of low-income families is warranted if this thesis - "The poor cost more" - also holds true for other areas of consumption.