Are The Costs of Proposed Environmental Regulations Overestimated? Evidence from the CFC Phaseout
AbstractBenefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis are often advocated fordecision making about environmental, health, and safety regulations, butthere has been little research evaluating the accuracy of prospectiveestimates of regulatory costs and benefits. Prospective estimates of themarginal cost of limiting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) consumption in theUnited States, published shortly before and after the September 1987adoption of the Montreal Protocol, are compared with retrospectiveestimates based on realized market prices. Estimates published beforeinternational regulations were adopted (in May 1986) substantiallyoverestimate the marginal costs of limiting CFC-11 and CFC-12consumption but modestly underestimate the costs of limiting CFC-113consumption. In contrast, estimates published shortly after adoption of theProtocol (in August 1988) appear to underestimate the marginal cost oflimiting CFC consumption. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 16 (2000)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263
cost estimates; benefit-cost analysis; chlorofluorocarbons;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Dechow, Patricia M. & Sloan, Richard G., 1997. "Returns to contrarian investment strategies: Tests of naive expectations hypotheses," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 3-27, January.
- repec:reg:wpaper:98 is not listed on IDEAS
- Ellerman, A. Denny & Montero, Juan-Pablo, 1998. "The Declining Trend in Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: Implications for Allowance Prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 26-45, July.
- Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
- Arrow, Kenneth J. & Cropper, Maureen L. & Eads, George C. & Hahn, Robert W. & Lave, Lester B. & Noll, Roger G. & Portney, Paul R. & Russell, Milson & Schmalensee, Richard & Smith, V. Kerry & Stavins, , 1997. "Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 195-221, May.
- Thomas A. Barthold, 1994. "Issues in the Design of Environmental Excise Taxes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 133-151, Winter.
- Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
- Shlyakhter, Alexander I. & Kammen, Daniel M. & Broido, Claire L. & Wilson, Richard, 1994. "Quantifying the credibility of energy projections from trends in past data : The US energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 119-130, February.
- Morgenstern, Richard & Harrington, Winston & Nelson, Per-Kristian, 1999. "On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates," Discussion Papers dp-99-18, Resources For the Future.
- Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001.
"National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years,"
dp-01-38, Resources For the Future.
- Cavanagh, Sheila & Hahn, Robert & Stavins, Robert, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," Working Paper Series rwp01-027, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- repec:reg:wpaper:397 is not listed on IDEAS
- repec:reg:wpaper:511 is not listed on IDEAS
- Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Frontrunners and Laggards: The Strategy of Environmental Regulation under Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 325-346, November.
- Stavins, Robert, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Global Climate Change Policy: A Primer," Working Paper Series rwp00-003, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Stephen DeCanio, 2003. "Economic Analysis, Environmental Policy, and Intergenerational Justice in the Reagan Administration The Case of the Montreal Protocol," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 299-321, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.