IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i1p17-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uniform Compliance Costs for Mineral Commodities: Who Gains and Who Loses?

Author

Listed:
  • Margaret E. Slade

Abstract

Changes in energy and nonfuelmineral production, consumption, and net-export revenue that result from environmental protection are estimated by income class and geographic region. Unlike previous assessments of unilateral adoption of standards, I assume that all producers incur equal cleanup costs. Adjustment is therefore accomplished through changes in prices and quantities rather than altered trade patterns. The estimated magnitude of worldwide changes is not large. Moreover, many poor countries are forecast to benefit, since their terms of trade improve. However, the problem of obtaining foreign exchange for investment remains. A financing scheme that divorces efficiency from equity is suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Margaret E. Slade, 1996. "Uniform Compliance Costs for Mineral Commodities: Who Gains and Who Loses?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 17-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:1:p:17-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147154
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    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. Sayeh Shojaeinia, 2023. "Metal market analysis: an empirical model for copper supply and demand in US market," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(3), pages 509-517, September.
    2. Thille, Henry, 2003. "Forward trading and storage in a Cournot duopoly," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 651-665, February.

    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:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:1:p:17-32. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.