Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Income Distributional Effects of Using Market-Based Instruments for Managing Common Property Resources

Contents:

Author Info

  • Msangi, Siwa
  • Howitt, Richard E.

Abstract

In the face of growing management problems and conflicts over increasing demands and dwindling or increasingly variable supplies of surface and groundwater, the need for revising the conventional water resource allocation methods has been increasingly felt among natural resource managers and policy makers. For the past 30 years economists have advocated for the application of various types of market-based instruments (MBIs) as an efficient means of effecting the re-allocation water resources among competing uses. While MBIs have been implemented in several countries, they have continued to encounter strong socio-political opposition, due to the impacts imposed on third-parties during transfers and re-allocations, as well as the distributional effects across different types of water users. Despite the demonstrable efficiency gains of MBIs, the resulting equity or distributional effects of MBI-driven re-allocations can be of equal or greater importance to policy-makers and the constituents that they serve. At the same time, the realized gains in economic efficiency from the application of MBIs depend heavily on the heterogeneity of the agents they are targeted towards, as well as the degree of information asymmetry that the regulator faces. In this paper, we use a simple theoretical framework to show the trade-offs between efficiency and equity that might arise from the application of MBIs to a heterogenous population of agents drawing non-cooperatively from a natural resource pool. Using the idealized centralized planner as a benchmark of dynamic, allocative efficiency, we compare the realized efficiency gains that can be realized by alternative policy instruments and the resulting impacts on distributional equity, in terms of the cumulative net benefits over time. Using the specific example of groundwater and the empirical setting of Southern California, we are able to highlight the trade-offs between efficiency and equity that might exist among alternative policy instruments, and how MBIs perform with respect to those dual criteria. We find that under agent heterogeneity, there are asymmetric gains in efficiency when the centralized planner allocations are constrained by equity considerations. Through such results, this paper demonstrates the importance of considering both efficiency gains and the minimization of disparities in distributional inequity, when designing policy instruments that create winners and losers with potentially serious socio-political ramifications.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/25247
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by International Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia with number 25247.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25247

Contact details of provider:
Email:
Web page: http://www.iaae-agecon.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

Other versions of this item:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard & Bailey, Elizabeth M, 1998. "The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 669-85, September.
  2. Dasgupta,P. S. & Heal,G. M., 1985. "Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521297615.
  3. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62, pages 124.
  4. Tsur, Yacov & Dinar, Ariel, 1995. "Efficiency and equity considerations in pricing and allocating irrigation water," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1460, The World Bank.
  5. Joseph Farrell., 1987. "Information and the Coase Theorem," Economics Working Papers 8747, University of California at Berkeley.
  6. Feinerman, Eli, 1988. "Groundwater Management: Efficiency and Equity Considerations," Agricultural Economics: The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 2(1), June.
  7. Knapp Keith C. & Olson Lars J., 1995. "The Economics of Conjunctive Groundwater Management with Stochastic Surface Supplies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 340-356, May.
  8. McGartland, Albert M. & Oates, Wallace E., 1985. "Marketable permits for the prevention of environmental deterioration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 207-228, September.
  9. Feinerman, Eli, 1988. "Groundwater management: Efficiency and equity considerations," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, June.
  10. Kim, C. S. & Moore, Michael R. & Hanchar, John J. & Nieswiadomy, Michael, 1989. "A dynamic model of adaptation to resource depletion: theory and an application to groundwater mining," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 66-82, July.
  11. Murphy, James J. & Dinar, Ariel & Howitt, Richard E. & Mastrangelo, Erin & Rassenti, Stephen J. & Smith, Vernon L., 2002. "Mechanisms For Addressing Third-Party Impacts Resulting From Voluntary Water Transfers," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19812, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.