Trading of pollution permits with banking and borrowing can achieve an optimal distribution of abatement across agents and time. However, when the environmental constraint is binding under imperfectly observed abatement practices, there is an incentive for sources to misrepresent their activities. This cheating can erode the efficiency of a permit system in achieving an environmental standard, but it is shown that this incentive to cheat causes similar efficiency losses in a command-and-control mechanism employing a uniform reduction policy.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL with number
21856.
Length: Date of creation: 2000 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea00:21856
Contact details of provider: Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Phone: (414) 918-3190 Fax: (414) 276-3349 Email: Web page: http://www.aaea.org More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).