IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-01-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implementation of Policy Instruments for Chlorinated Solvents: A Comparison of Design Standards, Bans, and Taxes to Phase Out Trichloroethylene

Author

Listed:
  • Sterner, Thomas
  • Slunge, Daniel

Abstract

This paper studies the Swedish prohibition of the hazardous solvent Trichloroethylene (TCE). Sweden is alone in completely prohibiting its use. The ban has been at best a partial success and illustrates the dilemmas of policymaking. Use has declined but not stopped, largely because the decision to ban TCE was challenged in the courts. Recently, the EU Court of Justice decided in favor of Sweden’s right to have a ban. This article analyzes abatement cost data to show that the cost of replacing TCE is low for most plants, although there appear to be a few firms for which it may be quite high. A crosscountry comparison indicates that the Swedish ban was less effective than the very strict technical requirements in Germany or the tax used in Norway. A tax (or deposit refund scheme) would be a good mechanism to achieve a swift phaseout.

Suggested Citation

  • Sterner, Thomas & Slunge, Daniel, 2001. "Implementation of Policy Instruments for Chlorinated Solvents: A Comparison of Design Standards, Bans, and Taxes to Phase Out Trichloroethylene," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-32, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-01-32.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    2. Dario Bonato & Armin Schmutzler, 2000. "When do Finns Benefit from Environmental Regulations? A Simple Microeconomic Approach to the Porter Controversy," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(IV), pages 513-530, December.
    3. Catherine Liston-Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Corporate Lobbying, Regulatory Conduct and the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 209-218, March.
    4. Seema Arora & Timothy N. Cason, 1996. "Why Do Firms Volunteer to Exceed Environmental Regulations? Understanding Participation in EPA's 33/50 Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 413-432.
    5. Harrington, Winston, 1988. "Enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 29-53, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Slunge & Francisco Alpizar, 2019. "Market-Based Instruments for Managing Hazardous Chemicals: A Review of the Literature and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Birkenfeld, Florian & Gastl, Daniel & Heblich, Stephan & Lienert, Ferry & Maergoyz, Mascha & Mont, Oksana & Plepys, Andrius, 2005. "Product ban versus risk management by setting emission and technology requirements: The effect of different regulatory schemes taking the use of trichloroethylene in Sweden and Germany as an example," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-37-05, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gangadharan, Lata, 2006. "Environmental compliance by firms in the manufacturing sector in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 477-486, October.
    2. Iwata, Hiroki, 2016. "Environmental Regulation and Choice of Innovation in Oligopoly," MPRA Paper 70280, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Runa Sarkar, 2008. "Public policy and corporate environmental behaviour: a broader view," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 281-297, September.
    4. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    5. Lata Gangadharan, 2001. "Compliance in environmental markets," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(10), pages 641-644.
    6. Abdoul Sam, 2010. "Impact of government-sponsored pollution prevention practices on environmental compliance and enforcement: evidence from a sample of US manufacturing facilities," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 266-286, June.
    7. Jon D. Harford, 1997. "Firm ownership patterns and motives for voluntary pollution control," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 421-431.
    8. Anna Rita Germani, 2007. "The Environmental Enforcement in the Civil and the Common Law Systems. A Case on the Economic Effects of Legal Institutions," Quaderni DSEMS 22-2007, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Matematiche e Statistiche, Universita' di Foggia.
    9. Choe, Chongwoo & Fraser, Iain, 1999. "An Economic Analysis of Household Waste Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 234-246, September.
    10. Dietrich Earnhart, 2004. "Panel Data Analysis of Regulatory Factors Shaping Environmental Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 391-401, February.
    11. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Earnhart, Dietrich, 2007. "Effects of permitted effluent limits on environmental compliance levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 178-193, February.
    13. Sam, Abdoul G., 2009. "Impact of Government-Sponsored Pollution Prevention Practices on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement: Evidence from a Sample of US Manufacturing Facilities," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49306, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Rousseau, Sandra, 2009. "Empirical Analysis of Sanctions for Environmental Offenses," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(3), pages 161-194, December.
    15. Eyer, Jonathan, 2018. "The effect of firm size on fracking safety," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-113.
    16. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Innes, Robert, 2010. "Environmental innovation and environmental performance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 27-42, January.
    17. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa & Inekwe, John & Smyth, Russell & Zhang, Xibin, 2019. "R&D intensity and carbon emissions in the G7: 1870–2014," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 30-37.
    18. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    19. Francesco Vona & Francesco Nicolli & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of renewable energy innovation: environmental policies vs. market regulation," Sciences Po publications 2012-05, Sciences Po.
    20. Sandra Rousseau, 2007. "Timing of environmental inspections: survival of the compliant," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 17-36, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    hazardous chemicals; regulation; environmental tax; solvents;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-01-32. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.