IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/renvpo/v5y2011i2p219-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Integrated Assessment of Water Markets: A Cross-Country Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • R. Quentin Grafton
  • Gary Libecap
  • Samuel McGlennon
  • Clay Landry
  • Bob O'Brien

Abstract

This article presents an integrated framework for assessing water markets in terms of their institutional foundations, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability. This framework can be a tool for (a) comparing different water markets, (b) tracking performance over time, and (c) identifying ways in which water markets might be adjusted by policy makers to achieve desired goals. The framework is used to identify the strengths and limitations of five water markets: (a) Australia's Murray-Darling Basin, (b) the western United States, (c) Chile (in particular the Limarí Valley), (d) South Africa; and (v) China (in particular, the North). The framework helps identify which of these water markets are currently able to contribute to integrated water resource management, which criteria underpin these markets, and which features of these markets may require further development. The findings for each market, as well as comparisons between them, provide general insights into water markets and how water governance can be improved. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Quentin Grafton & Gary Libecap & Samuel McGlennon & Clay Landry & Bob O'Brien, 2011. "An Integrated Assessment of Water Markets: A Cross-Country Comparison," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 219-239, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:renvpo:v:5:y:2011:i:2:p:219-239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reep/rer002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:renvpo:v:5:y:2011:i:2:p:219-239. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aereeea.html .

    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.