IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v8y2003i02p261-284_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting incentives right?: a comparative analysis of policy instruments for livestock waste pollution abatement in Yucatán, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Drucker, Adam G.
  • Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe

Abstract

Building on the extensive theoretical and empirical work regarding the cost-minimizing properties of economic instruments, this article describes and analyses the Mexican legislation relevant to the treatment/disposal of pig slurry in the state of Yucatán. Using a linear programming model to determine the optimal level of pig production and abatement processes simultaneously, different policy instruments and scenarios are compared. Serious shortcomings associated with the recently introduced command-and-control (CAC) legislation, which establishes concentration-based standards for discharges, are identified. It is shown that it will be extremely difficult and expensive to comply with (cost: US$41.8 million per annum). An alternative mass-based CAC approach, which instead regulates nitrogen applications to land, has compliance costs of US$3.5–US$9.4 million per annum, depending on the strictness of the standard. By contrast, an environmentally equivalent economic instrument approach results in additional cost savings of 22–25 per cent. The results are of relevance to Mexican policy makers, extensionists, researchers, and farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Drucker, Adam G. & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2003. "Getting incentives right?: a comparative analysis of policy instruments for livestock waste pollution abatement in Yucatán, Mexico," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 261-284, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:8:y:2003:i:02:p:261-284_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X03000147/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:8:y:2003:i:02:p:261-284_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.