Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?
AbstractPolicy makers aiming to get private landholders to supply non-marketed environmental services may need to provide efficient economic incentives. Two ideas have been explored to achieve this: linking contract payments to environmental outcomes and submitting the contracts to competitive tender. This paper investigates whether there are any gains to be had by combining the potential benefits of both approaches. Landholders’ risk aversion to only partially controlled outcomes may offset incentive effects if the fall in participation outweighs any increases in individual effort. Controlled lab experiments were designed on the basis of a theoretical model and were run in two countries, with varying rates of payments linked to environmental outcomes. Results suggest that it can be counterproductive in terms of expected environmental outcomes to combine tenders with incentive payments, especially when the target population is known to be risk-averse.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics in its series Working Papers with number 100883.
Date of creation: 18 Feb 2011
Date of revision:
Conservation tenders; auctions; incentive contracts; agricultural policy; environmental policy; market-based instruments; experimental economics; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; C92; D44; D82; D86; H57; Q24; Q28;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
- D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Auctions
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law
- H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement
- Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
- Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2011-03-19 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2011-03-19 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2011-03-19 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2011-03-19 (Experimental Economics)
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.:
- Rob Fraser, 2002.
"Moral Hazard and Risk Management in Agri-environmental Policy,"
Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 475-487.
- Fraser, Rob W., 2002. "Moral Hazard and Risk Management in Agri-Environmental Policy," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra 125086, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
- Adam Ozanne & Ben White, 2007. "Equivalence of Input Quotas and Input Charges under Asymmetric Information in Agri-environmental Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 260-268, 06.
- Zabel, Astrid & Holm-Muller, Karin, 2007. "Performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden," Discussion Papers 57031, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
- Costello, Christopher & Polasky, Stephen, 2004. "Dynamic reserve site selection," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 157-174, June.
- R. Preston McAfee & John McMillan, 1986. "Bidding for Contracts: A Principal-Agent Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 326-338, Autumn.
- Rob Hart, 2005. "Combating moral hazard in agri-environmental schemes: a multiple-agent approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 32(1), pages 75-91, March.
- Andrew Moxey & Ben White & Adam Ozanne, 1999. "Efficient Contract Design for Agri-Environment Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 187-202.
- A. P. Moxey & B. White & R. A. Sanderson & S. P. Rushton, 1995. "An Approach To Linking An Ecological Vegetation Model To An Agricultural Economic Model," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 381-397.
- Ching-jen Sun, 2008.
"A Note on the Dynamics of Incentive Contracts,"
2008_23, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance.
- Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
- Stefan Hajkowicz & Andrew Higgins & Kristen Williams & Daniel P. Faith & Michael Burton, 2007. "Optimisation and the selection of conservation contracts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 39-56, 03.
- Gorddard, Russell J. & Whitten, Stuart M. & Reeson, Andrew, 2008. "When should biodiversity tenders contract on outcomes?," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 5979, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.