IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/portec/v3y2004i2d10.1007_s10258-004-0034-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental market creation: saviour or oversell?

Author

Listed:
  • David Pearce

    (University College London
    Imperial College London)

Abstract

. In recent years considerable attention has been paid to the notion of ‘market creation’ for the conservation of environmental assets. Market creation establishes a market in the external benefit or cost in question (e.g. biodiversity or pollution reduction) and leaves the relevant parties to adjust their behaviour accordingly. While most attention has been paid to market creation through tradable permits and taxes (the ‘polluter-pays’), it is less easy to secure a perspective on ‘beneficiary-pays’ initiatives. Both polluter-pays and beneficiary-pays initiatives are examples of modified Coaseian bargains in which governments intervene in the bargains to lower transactions costs, establish property rights, deal with public goods issues, or act on behalf of disadvantaged groups. This paper reviews four major initiatives in this respect - debt-for-nature swaps, bioprospecting and the Global Environment Facility at the global level, and the Costa Rican Forest Law at the local level. It finds that while there is much to applaud in initiatives in these new markets, serious questions remain about the modest flows of funds associated with such ‘global bargains’, and the extent to which they secure environmental improvements relative to the baseline of business-as-usual.

Suggested Citation

  • David Pearce, 2004. "Environmental market creation: saviour or oversell?," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 3(2), pages 115-144, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:portec:v:3:y:2004:i:2:d:10.1007_s10258-004-0034-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10258-004-0034-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10258-004-0034-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10258-004-0034-y?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 search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2019. "Coaseian Biodiversity Conservation and Market Power," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 849-873, March.
    2. Yadav, Lava Prakash & O'Neill, Stephen, 2013. "Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 62-70.
    3. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    4. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Sell, Joachim & Koellner, Thomas & Weber, Olaf & Proctor, Wendy & Pedroni, Lucio & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects - The choice of international market actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 496-515, January.
    6. R. Simpson, 2007. "David Pearce and the economic valuation of biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 91-109, May.
    7. David Pearce, 2008. "Do We Really Care About Biodiversity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 611-611, August.
    8. Samuel Fankhauser & David Pearce, 2014. "Financing for sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 28, pages 446-460, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.

    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:spr:portec:v:3:y:2004:i:2:d:10.1007_s10258-004-0034-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.