Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:25:28.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Policy Reform: A Taxonomy of Economists' Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Leonard Shabman  and
Kurt Stephenson
Leonard Shabman
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
Kurt Stephenson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
Get access

Abstract

As the environmental policy recommendations of economists become more acceptable, differences in the professional understanding of, and support for, different policy forms are becoming more apparent. These different approaches to environmental policy and research are described around a taxonomy of four perspectives: “rational analysts,” “cost analysts,” “market managers,” and “free market environmentalists.” These perspectives are compared and contrasted. Recognition of these differences can result in a better appreciation of the different research agendas of economists and can improve clarity in teaching and policy advising.

Keywords

economic incentivesenvironmental policyregulation
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , July 1996 , pp. 117 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, B. A., and Stewart, R. B.. “Comment: Reforming Environmental Law” Stanford Law Rev. 37(1985):1333–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, B. A., and Stewart, R. B.. “Reforming Environmental Law: The Democratic Case for Market Incentives” Columbia J. Environ. Law 13(1988): 171–89.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. L. “The New Resource Economics: Old Ideas and New Applications” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 64(1982):928–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. L., and Hill, P. J.. “The Evolution of Property Rights: A Study of the American West” J. Law and Econ. 18(1975): 163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T., and Leal, D.. Free Market Environmen-talism. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 1991.Google Scholar
Baird, C. “James Buchanan and the Austrians: The Common Ground” Cato J. 9(1989):201–31.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G., and Melamed, A. D.. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral” Harvard Law Rev. 85(1972): 1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, R. W. “Is There Progress in Environmental Policy” Contemporary Econ. Policy 8(1995):80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, E. G., ed. The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976.Google Scholar
EDF Letter. “Denver Caps Air Pollution,” and “U.S. and Mexico Begin Negotiations on Border Region's Air Pollution Problem” 26(November 1995):2–3. Environmental Defense Fund publication.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. W., and Stavins, R. N.. “Managed Market Environmental Regulation: A New Era from an Old Idea” Ecology Law Quart. 18(1991): 1–42.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. “Improving Environmental Policy: Are Markets the Solution” Contemporary Econ. Policy 9(January 1995):74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, M. “After Environmentalism: Three Approaches to Managing Environmental Regulation” Regulation 18(1994):25–34.Google Scholar
Kneese, A., and Schultze, C.. Pollution, Prices, and Public Policy. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 1978.Google Scholar
Landes, W. M., and Posner, R. A.. The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letson, D. “Point/Nonpoint Source Pollution Trading: An Interpretive Survey” Nat. Resour. J. 32(1992): 219–32.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Payne, J. “What's Wrong with the Center?” Amer. Enterprise 7,1 (January/February 1996):32–39.Google Scholar
Rader, D. N. “Nutrient Trading as a Management Option: The Tar-Pamlico Experiment.” In Economic Issues Associated with Nutrient Management Policy: Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, eds., Norris, P. E. and Danielson, L. E.. SRDC Pub. No. 180, Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State University, February 1994.Google Scholar
Schmid, A. A. Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Political Economy Approach. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Shabman, L. “Democlerosis: Assessing the Argument” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77(December 1995). In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabman, L.. “Water Resources Management: Policy Economics for an Era of Transition.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 16,1(July 1984):53–65.Google Scholar
Smith, F. L. “Market and the Environment: A Critical Reappraisal” Contemporary Econ. Policy 8(1995): 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R. N. “Transactions Costs and Markets for Pollution Control” Resources 119(Spring 1995):9–18.Google Scholar
Stavins, R. N., et al. Project 88: Harnessing Market Forces to Protect Our Environment. A public policy study sponsored by Senators Wirth, Timothy (D-CO) and Heinz, John (R-PA), Washington DC, 1988.Google Scholar
Stavins, R. N., et al. Project 88—Round II: Incentives for Action: Designing Market-Based Environmental Strategies. A public policy study sponsored by Senators Wirth, Timothy (D-CO) and Heinz, John (R-PA), Washington DC, 1991.Google Scholar
Tietenberg, T. H. Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietenberg, T. H.. Environmental Economics and Policy. New York: Harper Collins, 1994.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, House. “Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995, Analysis of Risk Reduction Benefits and Costs.” 104th Cong., Sec. 421(l)(c). H.R. 9, introduced by Rep. Archer (R-Texas), 4 January 1995.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Economic Incentives—Options for Environmental Protection. Pub. No. EPA 21P-2001. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, March 1991.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “President Announces Regulatory Reforms.” EPA Journal 21,2(Spnng 1995): 2.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. “Allowance Trading Offers an Opportunity to Reduce Emissions at Less Cost.” Pub. No. GAO/RCED-95-30, Washington DC, 1994.Google Scholar