IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v2y2010i12p3710-3734d10376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Does Environmental Policy in Representative Democracies Tend to Be Inadequate? A Preliminary Public Choice Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Kollmann

    (Energy Institute, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

  • Friedrich Schneider

    (Institute of Economics, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria)

Abstract

There is a widespread consensus among the most important players in developed countries (voters, politicians, producers, traditional and green interest groups and bureaucracies) that a shift towards an eco-social market economy is essential for sustainable growth. Nevertheless, market-based instruments have not as yet been implemented satisfactorily in environmental policy. To identify the reasons for this insufficient implementation over the past decade, the Public Choice theory is used. The players’ behavior is analyzed in order to show that their incentives for implementing market-based instruments in environmental policy, instead of command-and-control measures, are surprisingly weak. Knowing the obstacles to implementing market-based instruments provides valuable insight into how to overcome them.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Kollmann & Friedrich Schneider, 2010. "Why Does Environmental Policy in Representative Democracies Tend to Be Inadequate? A Preliminary Public Choice Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(12), pages 1-25, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:2:y:2010:i:12:p:3710-3734:d:10376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/12/3710/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/12/3710/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    2. Lars P. Feld & Bruno S. Frey, 2002. "Trust breeds trust: How taxpayers are treated," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 87-99, July.
    3. Cristina Ciocirlan & Bruce Yandle, 2003. "The Political Economy of Green Taxation in OECD Countries," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 203-218, May.
    4. Agnolucci, Paolo, 2009. "The effect of the German and British environmental taxation reforms: A simple assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3043-3051, August.
    5. Philippe Thalmann, 2004. "The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 179-217, April.
    6. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Environmental Morale and Motivation," IEW - Working Papers 288, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. John A. List & Daniel M. Sturm, 2006. "How Elections Matter: Theory and Evidence from Environmental Policy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1249-1281.
    8. Chang, Chinkun & Turnbull, Geoffrey K, 2002. "Bureaucratic Behavior in the Local Public Sector: A Revealed Preference Approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(1-2), pages 191-210, October.
    9. Stavins, Robert, 2003. "Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience (and Related Research)?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-43, Resources for the Future.
    10. Markussen, Peter & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard & Vesterdal, Morten, 2002. "The political economy of a tradable GHG permit market in the European Union," Working Papers 02-3, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    11. Benoît Le Maux, 2009. "Governmental behavior in representative democracy: a synthesis of the theoretical literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 447-465, December.
    12. Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "The Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Brons, Martijn & Nijkamp, Peter & Pels, Eric & Rietveld, Piet, 2008. "A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand. A SUR approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2105-2122, September.
    14. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2004. "Rent-Seeking and Grandfathering: The Case of GHG Trade in the Eu," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(1), pages 69-80, January.
    15. Aidt, Toke S., 2010. "Green taxes: Refunding rules and lobbying," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 31-43, July.
    16. Bornstein, Nicholas & Lanz, Bruno, 2008. "Voting on the environment: Price or ideology? Evidence from Swiss referendums," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 430-440, October.
    17. Keohane, Nathaniel O. & Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 1997. "The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Discussion Papers 10759, Resources for the Future.
    18. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753.
    19. Welsch, Heinz, 2006. "Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 801-813, July.
    20. Frey, Bruno S & Schneider, Friedrich, 1978. "A Politico-Economic Model of the United Kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 88(350), pages 243-253, June.
    21. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2002. "Lobbyism and CO2 trade in the EU," Working Papers 02-16, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    22. Sandoff, Anders & Schaad, Gabriela, 2009. "Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3967-3977, October.
    23. Santos, Rui & Antunes, Paula & Baptista, Gualter & Mateus, Pedro & Madruga, Luisa, 2006. "Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 100-110, November.
    24. Klok, Jacob & Larsen, Anders & Dahl, Anja & Hansen, Kirsten, 2006. "Ecological Tax Reform in Denmark: history and social acceptability," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 905-916, May.
    25. Wachs, Martin, 2003. "A Dozen Reasons for Raising Gasoline Taxes," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2000f8t0, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    26. Bohringer, Christoph & Vogt, Carsten, 2004. "The dismantling of a breakthrough: the Kyoto Protocol as symbolic policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 597-617, September.
    27. Layton, David F. & Levine, Richard A., 2003. "How Much Does the Far Future Matter? A Hierarchical Bayesian Analysis of the Public's Willingness to Mitigate Ecological Impacts of Climate Change," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 533-544, January.
    28. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard & Daugbjerg, Carsten & Hjollund, Lene & Pedersen, Anders Branth, 2001. "Consumers, industrialists and the political economy of green taxation: CO2 taxation in OECD," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 489-497, May.
    29. Kirchgassner, Gebhard & Schneider, Friedrich, 2003. "On the Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 115(3-4), pages 369-396, June.
    30. Charles K. Rowley & Friedrich G. Schneider, 2008. "Readings in Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-0-387-75870-1, December.
    31. Martin Halla & Friedrich Schneider & Alexander Wagner, 2013. "Satisfaction with democracy and collective action problems: the case of the environment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 109-137, April.
    32. Schneider, Friedrich & Volkert, Juergen, 1999. "No chance for incentive-oriented environmental policies in representative democracies? A Public Choice analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 123-138, October.
    33. Clinch, J. Peter & Dunne, Louise, 2006. "Environmental tax reform: an assessment of social responses in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 950-959, May.
    34. Owens, Susan & Driffill, Louise, 2008. "How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 4412-4418, December.
    35. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Karen Palmer & William Shobe & Dallas Burtraw, 2010. "An Experimental Study of Auctions Versus Grandfathering to Assign Pollution Permits," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(2-3), pages 514-525, 04-05.
    36. Eva Benz & Andreas Löschel & Bodo Sturm, 2010. "Auctioning of CO 2 emission allowances in Phase 3 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 705-718, November.
    37. Betz, Regina, 2006. "Emissions trading to combat climate change: The impact of scheme design on transaction costs," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174096, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    38. Gary S. Becker, 1983. "A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(3), pages 371-400.
    39. Anger, Niels & Böhringer, Christoph & Löschel, Andreas, 2010. "Paying the piper and calling the tune?: A meta-regression analysis of the double-dividend hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1495-1502, May.
    40. Patuelli, Roberto & Nijkamp, Peter & Pels, Eric, 2005. "Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 564-583, December.
    41. Brännlund, Runar & Persson, Lars, 2010. "Tax or no tax? Preferences for climate policy attributes," Umeå Economic Studies 802, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    42. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2003. "The Political Economy of Climate Change Policy in the EU: Auction and Grandfathering," Working Papers 51/03, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    43. Markussen, Peter & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2005. "Industry lobbying and the political economy of GHG trade in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 245-255, January.
    44. Frank J. Convery, 2009. "Reflections--The Emerging Literature on Emissions Trading in Europe," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 121-137, Winter.
    45. Gullberg, Anne Therese, 2008. "Lobbying friends and foes in climate policy: The case of business and environmental interest groups in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2954-2962, August.
    46. Beuermann, Christiane & Santarius, Tilman, 2006. "Ecological tax reform in Germany: handling two hot potatoes at the same time," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 917-929, May.
    47. repec:ags:aare05:139304 is not listed on IDEAS
    48. Sebastian Goers & Alexander Wagner & Jürgen Wegmayr, 2010. "New and old market-based instruments for climate change policy," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-30, June.
    49. Romero-Jordán, Desiderio & del Río, Pablo & Jorge-García, Marta & Burguillo, Mercedes, 2010. "Price and income elasticities of demand for passenger transport fuels in Spain. Implications for public policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 3898-3909, August.
    50. Rainer Eising, 2007. "Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 329-362, September.
    51. Anger, Niels & Böhringer, Christoph & Lange, Andreas, 2006. "Differentiation of Green Taxes: A Political-Economy Analysis for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-003, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    52. Charles K. Rowley, 2008. "Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy," Springer Books, in: Readings in Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy, chapter 1, pages 3-29, Springer.
    53. Dresner, Simon & Dunne, Louise & Clinch, Peter & Beuermann, Christiane, 2006. "Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: an introduction to the special issue," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 895-904, May.
    54. David Anthoff & Robert Hahn, 2010. "Government failure and market failure: on the inefficiency of environmental and energy policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 26(2), pages 197-224, Summer.
    55. Daniel Graham & Stephen Glaister, 2005. "Decomposing the determinants of road traffic demand," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 19-28.
    56. Welsch, Heinz, 2009. "Implications of happiness research for environmental economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2735-2742, September.
    57. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Bilharz, Michael, 2006. "Green energy market development in Germany: effective public policy and emerging customer demand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(13), pages 1681-1696, September.
    58. Felder, Stefan & Schleiniger, Reto, 2002. "Environmental tax reform: efficiency and political feasibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 107-116, August.
    59. Ghalwash, Tarek, 2004. "Energy Taxes as a Signaling Device: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Preferences," Umeå Economic Studies 646, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    60. Stefan Felder & Reto Schleiniger, "undated". "Environmental Tax Reform: Efficiency and Political Feasibility," IEW - Working Papers 013, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krumm, Raimund & Volkert, Jürgen, 2015. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der politischen Realisierbarkeit intra- und intergenerativer Gerechtigkeit," UFZ Discussion Papers 11/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Bellelli, Francesco S. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Aftab, Ashar, 2023. "An empirical analysis of participation in international environmental agreements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    3. Leo Wangler & Juan-Carlos Altamirano-Cabrera & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2013. "The political economy of international environmental agreements: a survey," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 387-403, September.
    4. Strunz, Sebastian & Schindler, Harry, 2017. "Identifying barriers towards a post-growth economy: A political economy view," UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2017, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    5. Sven Rudolph & Friedrich Schneider, 2013. "Political barriers of implementing carbon markets in Japan: A Public Choice analysis and the empirical evidence before and after the Fukushima nuclear disaster," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(2), pages 211-235, April.
    6. Inwon Kang & Hae Seok Jee & Matthew Minsuk Shin, 2018. "Affective Policy Performance Evaluation Model: A Case of an International Trade Policy Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Isabel Garcia-Herrero & Maria Margallo & Jara Laso & Raquel Onandía & Angel Irabien & Ruben Aldaco, 2017. "Measuring the Vulnerability of an Energy Intensive Sector to the EU ETS under a Life Cycle Approach: The Case of the Chlor-Alkali Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Seckler, Matthias & Volkert, Jürgen, 2021. "The capability approach: A promising foundation for sustainable development?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    9. Elias Asproudis & Thomas Weyman-Jones, 2020. "How the ENGOs Can Fight the Industrial/Business Lobby with Their Tools from Their Own Field? ENGOs Participation in Emissions Trading Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Sven Rudolph & Friedrich Schneider, 2011. "Did the Japanese Patient Follow the Doctor's Orders? Mostly no! A Public Choice Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Schemes in Japan before and after the Earthquake," CESifo Working Paper Series 3639, CESifo.
    11. Markus Pasche, 2013. "What Can be Learned from Behavioural Economics for Environmental Policy?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-020, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Lukas Benz & Stefan Paulus & Julia Scherer & Janik Syryca & Stefan Trück, 2021. "Investors' carbon risk exposure and their potential for shareholder engagement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 282-301, January.
    13. Strunz, Sebastian & Schindler, Harry, 2018. "Identifying Barriers Toward a Post-growth Economy – A Political Economy View," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 68-77.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sven Rudolph & Friedrich Schneider, 2011. "Did the Japanese Patient Follow the Doctor's Orders? Mostly no! A Public Choice Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Schemes in Japan before and after the Earthquake," CESifo Working Paper Series 3639, CESifo.
    2. Sven Rudolph & Friedrich Schneider, 2013. "Political barriers of implementing carbon markets in Japan: A Public Choice analysis and the empirical evidence before and after the Fukushima nuclear disaster," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(2), pages 211-235, April.
    3. Krumm, Raimund & Volkert, Jürgen, 2015. "Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der politischen Realisierbarkeit intra- und intergenerativer Gerechtigkeit," UFZ Discussion Papers 11/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen & Clau Dermont, 2018. "The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 37-62, April.
    5. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    6. Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Thomas & Sterner, Erik, 2022. "Understanding the resistance to carbon taxes: Drivers and barriers among the general public and fuel-tax protesters," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Leo Wangler & Juan-Carlos Altamirano-Cabrera & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2013. "The political economy of international environmental agreements: a survey," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 387-403, September.
    8. Stefano Carattini & Maria Carvalho & Sam Fankhauser, 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    9. Hsu, Shi-Ling & Walters, Joshua & Purgas, Anthony, 2008. "Pollution tax heuristics: An empirical study of willingness to pay higher gasoline taxes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 3612-3619, September.
    10. Pablo Río & Xavier Labandeira, 2009. "Barriers to the introduction of market-based instruments in climate policies: an integrated theoretical framework," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 10(1), pages 41-68, March.
    11. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Achim Voß, 2015. "How Disagreement About Social Costs Leads to Inefficient Energy-Productivity Investment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 521-548, April.
    13. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Carl, Jeremy & Fedor, David, 2016. "Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 50-77.
    15. Bornstein, Nicholas & Lanz, Bruno, 2008. "Voting on the environment: Price or ideology? Evidence from Swiss referendums," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 430-440, October.
    16. Umit, Resul & Schaffer, Lena Maria, 2020. "Attitudes towards carbon taxes across Europe: The role of perceived uncertainty and self-interest," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini, 2017. "Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(1), pages 197-227, January.
    18. Drosdowski, Thomas, 2006. "On the Link Between Democracy and Environment," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-355, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    19. Chortareas, Georgios & Logothetis, Vassilis & Papandreou, Andreas, 2018. "Public Opinion, Elections, and Environmental Fiscal Policy," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2018/9, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    20. Yu‐Bong Lai, 2018. "The Feasibility of the Double‐Dividend Hypothesis in a Democratic Economy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(1), pages 211-241, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public choice and environmental policies; sustainability; voters; government; interest groups; tradable permits; green taxes [D23; D62; D72; D73; H23; Q57; Q58];
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:gam:jsusta:v:2:y:2010:i:12:p:3710-3734:d:10376. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.