IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/lus/zwipol/v66y2017i1p80-109n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Effizienz von Zuteilungsmechanismen bei Flächenzertifikaten zwischen Versteigerung und Grandfathering – experimentelle Evidenz

Author

Listed:
  • Proeger Till

    (Till Proeger, Universität Göttingen, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftspolitik und Mittelstandsforschung, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3, 37073 Göttingen Germany, Tel.: 0551 3912330, E-Mail:)

  • Meub Lukas

    (Lukas Meub, Universität Göttingen, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftspolitik und Mittelstandsforschung, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3, 37073 Göttingen Germany)

  • Bizer Kilian

    (Kilian Bizer, Universität Göttingen, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftspolitik und Mittelstandsforschung, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3, 37073 Göttingen Germany)

  • Henger Ralph

    (Ralph Henger, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 21, 50668 Köln Germany)

Abstract

Die Einführung handelbarer Flächenzertifikate wird als Regulierungsinstrument zur Reduktion des Flächenverbrauchs in Deutschland diskutiert. Bislang fehlen jedoch empirische Studien zur Untersuchung der Wohlfahrts- und Umverteilungswirkung eines solchen cap & trade Systems. Insbesondere die Frage nach der Effizienz verschiedener Mechanismen der Primärallokation von Zertifikaten ist politisch relevant, aber bisher nicht untersucht. Die vorliegende Studie analysiert daher anhand eines ökonomischen Laborexperiments, das ein Zertifikatsystem zur Flächenverbrauchsreduktion simuliert, die Auswirkungen von drei Primärallokationsmechanismen: einer vollständigen Gratiszuteilung, einer ausschließlichen Versteigerung und einer hälftigen Aufteilung von Gratiszuteilung und Versteigerung. Es zeigt sich, dass ein Auktionsmechanismus die Effizienz und Stabilität des Zertifikatsystems senkt. Zertifikatpreise weisen eine höhere Volatilität auf und es bestehen stärker als durch die Theorie zu erwartende Umverteilungseffekte zu Gunsten des Auktionators. Persistente Preisunterschiede zwischen Auktion und innerkommunalem Handel verhindern eine effiziente Allokation der Zertifikate. Während das Zertifikatsystem insgesamt bei einer Gratiszuteilung einen hohen Effizienzgrad erreicht, führt ein Auktionsmechanismus zu Ineffizienzen, Unsicherheit und starken Umverteilungswirkungen. Aus wirtschaftspolitischer Sicht unterstützen diese Ergebnisse eine Gratis-Zuteilung innerhalb eines Systems handelbarer Flächenzertifikate.

Suggested Citation

  • Proeger Till & Meub Lukas & Bizer Kilian & Henger Ralph, 2017. "Die Effizienz von Zuteilungsmechanismen bei Flächenzertifikaten zwischen Versteigerung und Grandfathering – experimentelle Evidenz," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 80-109, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:lus:zwipol:v:66:y:2017:i:1:p:80-109:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/zfwp-2017-0001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfwp-2017-0001
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/zfwp-2017-0001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dallas Burtraw & Jacob Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Erica Myers & Karen Palmer & William Shobe, 2009. "Collusion in auctions for emission permits: An experimental analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 672-691.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    3. Michel Mougeot & Florence Naegelen & Benjamin Pelloux & Jean‐Louis Rullière, 2011. "Breaking Collusion in Auctions through Speculation: An Experiment on CO 2 Emission Permit Markets," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(5), pages 829-856, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Dallas Burtraw & Jacob Goeree & Charles Holt & Erica Myers & Karen Palmer & William Shobe, 2011. "Price Discovery in Emissions Permit Auctions," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 11-36, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    6. Shobe, William & Palmer, Karen L. & Myers, Erica & Holt, Charles & Goeree, Jacob K. & Burtraw, Dallas, 2010. "An Experimental Analysis of Auctioning Emission Allowances Under a Loose Cap," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Fischer, Beate & Klauer, Bernd & Schiller, Johannes, 2013. "Prospects for sustainable land-use policy in Germany: Experimenting with a sustainability heuristic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 213-220.
    8. Markus Wråke & Erica Myers & Dallas Burtraw & Svante Mandell & Charles Holt, 2010. "Opportunity Cost for Free Allocations of Emissions Permits: An Experimental Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 331-336, July.
    9. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bizer, Kilian & Henger, Ralph & Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "The political economy of certificates for land use in Germany: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 225, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    11. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Duke, Charlotte, 2003. "Market power in tradable emission markets: a laboratory testbed for emission trading in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 469-491, October.
    12. Wråke, Markus & Myers, Erica & Mandell, Svante & Holt, Charles & Burtraw, Dallas, 2008. "Pricing Strategies under Emissions Trading: An Experimental Analysis," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-49, Resources for the Future.
    13. 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.
    14. Veronika Grimm & Lyuba Ilieva, 2013. "An experiment on emissions trading: the effect of different allocation mechanisms," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 308-338, December.
    15. Weber, Jean-Louis, 2007. "Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European Environment Agency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 695-707, March.
    16. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 271, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    2. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Henger, Ralph & Straub, Tim & Weinhardt, Christof, 2023. "Tradable planning permits in the field: Executive experimental results from Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2015. "Tradable development rights under uncertainty: An experimental approach," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 270, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    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. Bizer, Kilian & Henger, Ralph & Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "The political economy of certificates for land use in Germany: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 225, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    2. Haoran He & Yefeng Chen, 2021. "Auction mechanisms for allocating subsidies for carbon emissions reduction: an experimental investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 387-430, August.
    3. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    4. Veronika Grimm & Lyuba Ilieva, 2013. "An experiment on emissions trading: the effect of different allocation mechanisms," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 308-338, December.
    5. Wang, M. & Zhou, P., 2022. "A two-step auction-refund allocation rule of CO2 emission permits," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    6. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Timothy N. Cason & Frans P. Vries, 2019. "Dynamic Efficiency in Experimental Emissions Trading Markets with Investment Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 1-31, May.
    8. Silvester van Koten, 2014. "Do Emission Trading Schemes Facilitate Efficient Abatement Investments? An Experimental Study," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp503, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    9. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    10. Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Ro’i Zultan, 2014. "Auction Mechanisms And Bidder Collusion: Bribes, Signals And Selection," Working Papers 1406, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    11. Fehr, Dietmar & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2015. "The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap: A failed replication of Plott and Zeiler," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 120-128.
    12. Koji Kotani & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2019. "Which performs better under trader settings, double auction or uniform price auction?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 247-267, March.
    13. Hammermann, Andrea & Mohnen, Alwine, 2014. "The pric(z)e of hard work," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-15.
    14. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2012. "Investment Incentives Under Emission Trading: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 229-249, October.
    15. Dormady, Noah C., 2014. "Carbon auctions, energy markets & market power: An experimental analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 468-482.
    16. David F. Perkis & Timothy N. Cason & Wallace E. Tyner, 2016. "An Experimental Investigation of Hard and Soft Price Ceilings in Emissions Permit Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 703-718, April.
    17. Jiasen Sun & Guo Li, 2020. "Designing a double auction mechanism for the re-allocation of emission permits," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 291(1), pages 847-874, August.
    18. David McAdams & Giuseppe Lopomo & Leslie Marx & Brian Murray, "undated". "Carbon Allowance Auction Design: An Assessment of Options for the U.S," Working Papers 10-64, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    19. Charles A. Holt & William M. Shobe, 2013. "Investigation of the Effects of Emission Market Design on the Market-Based Compliance Mechanism of the California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Reports 2013-01, Center for Economic and Policy Studies.
    20. Regina Betz & Ben Greiner & Sascha Schweitzer & Stefan Seifert, 2017. "Auction Format and Auction Sequence in Multi‐item Multi‐unit Auctions: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 351-371, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    C9; Q57; R14; auction; economic experiment; grandfathering; initial allocation; land use; tradable planning permits;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    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:lus:zwipol:v:66:y:2017:i:1:p:80-109:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.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.