IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpdc/0512023.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

'Direct and Indirect Shadow Price Estimates of Nitrate Pollution Treated as an Undesirable Output and Input', Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol. 27, No. 2 (December 2002) pp: 420-432

Author

Listed:
  • Saleem Shaik

    (Mississippi State University)

  • Glenn A Helmers

    (University of Nebraska)

  • Michael Langemeier

    (Kansas State University)

Abstract

The implication of treating environmental pollution as an undesirable output (weak disposability) as well as a normal input (strong disposability) on the direct and indirect shadow price and cost estimates of nitrogen pollution abatement is analyzed using Nebraska agriculture sector data. The shadow price of nitrogen pollution abatement treated as an undesirable output represents the reduced revenue from reducing nitrogen pollution. In contrast, the shadow price of nitrogen pollution abatement treated as an input reflects the increased cost of reducing nitrogen pollution. For the 1936-97 period, the estimated shadow price and cost of nitrogen pollution abatement for Nebraska ranges from $0.91 to $2.21 per pound and from $300 to $729 million, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Saleem Shaik & Glenn A Helmers & Michael Langemeier, 2005. "'Direct and Indirect Shadow Price Estimates of Nitrate Pollution Treated as an Undesirable Output and Input', Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Vol. 27, No. 2 (December 2002) pp: 420-432," Development and Comp Systems 0512023, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpdc:0512023
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 13.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/dev/papers/0512/0512023.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shaik, Saleem & Helmers, Glenn A., 1999. "Shadow Price Of Environmental Bads: Weak Vs. Strong Disposability," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21615, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Coggins, Jay S. & Swinton, John R., 1996. "The Price of Pollution: A Dual Approach to Valuing SO2Allowances," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-72, January.
    3. Bromley, Daniel W., 1996. "The Environmental Implications Of Agriculture," Staff Papers 12591, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1993. "Derivation of Shadow Prices for Undesirable Outputs: A Distance Function Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(2), pages 374-380, May.
    5. Frank M. Gollop & Gregory P. Swinand, 1998. "From Total Factor to Total Resource Productivity: An Application to Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 577-583.
    6. Russell W. Pittman, 1981. "Issue in Pollution Control: Interplant Cost Differences and Economies of Scale," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(1), pages 1-17.
    7. Shaik, Saleem, 2005. "Environmentally Adjusted Elasticity Measures," 2005 Annual Meeting, February 5-9, 2005, Little Rock, Arkansas 35645, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Klaus Conrad & Catherine J. Morrison, 1985. "The Impact of Pollution Abatement Investment on Productivity Change: AnEmpirical Comparison of the U.S., Germany, and Canada," NBER Working Papers 1763, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 1998. "Shadow Pricing of Good and Bad Commodities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 584-590.
    10. Yaisawarng, Suthathip & Klein, J Douglass, 1994. "The Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Controls on Productivity Change in the U.S. Electric Power Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(3), pages 447-460, August.
    11. Gollop, Frank M & Roberts, Mark J, 1983. "Environmental Regulations and Productivity Growth: The Case of Fossil-Fueled Electric Power Generation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(4), pages 654-674, August.
    12. Robert D. Weaver, 1998. "Measuring Productivity of Environmentally Interactive Technologies: The Case of Agriculture and the Environment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 595-599.
    13. Hrubovcak, James & LeBlanc, Michael & Eakin, B. Kelly, 1995. "Accounting for the Environment in Agriculture," Technical Bulletins 156782, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shaik, Saleem & Helmers, Glenn A. & Langemeier, Michael R., 2002. "Direct And Indirect Shadow Price And Cost Estimates Of Nitrogen Pollution Abatement," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Aiken, Deborah Vaughn & Pasurka, Carl Jr., 2003. "Adjusting the measurement of US manufacturing productivity for air pollution emissions control," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 329-351, October.
    3. Mekaroonreung, Maethee & Johnson, Andrew L., 2012. "Estimating the shadow prices of SO2 and NOx for U.S. coal power plants: A convex nonparametric least squares approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 723-732.
    4. Van Ha, Nguyen & Kant, Shashi & Maclaren, Virginia, 2008. "Shadow prices of environmental outputs and production efficiency of household-level paper recycling units in Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 98-110, March.
    5. Hailu, Atakelty & Hailu, Atakelty, 2003. "Pollution abatement and productivity performance of regional Canadian pulp and paper industries," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-25.
    6. Surender Kumar & Rakesh Kumar Jain, 2021. "Cost of CO2 emission mitigation and its decomposition: evidence from coal-fired thermal power sector in India," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 693-717, August.
    7. Bruce Domazlicky & William Weber, 2004. "Does Environmental Protection Lead to Slower Productivity Growth in the Chemical Industry?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(3), pages 301-324, July.
    8. Halkos, George & Petrou, Kleoniki Natalia, 2018. "A critical review of the main methods to treat undesirable outputs in DEA," MPRA Paper 90374, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. repec:npf:wpaper:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Coelli, Tim, 2011. "Measurement of agricultural total factor productivity growth incorporating environmental factors: A nutrients balance approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 462-474.
    11. Halkos, George & Petrou, Kleoniki Natalia, 2019. "Treating undesirable outputs in DEA: A critical review," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 97-104.
    12. repec:ind:nipfwp:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Adewale Henry Adenuga & John Davis & George Hutchinson & Trevor Donnellan & Myles Patton, 2019. "Environmental Efficiency and Pollution Costs of Nitrogen Surplus in Dairy Farms: A Parametric Hyperbolic Technology Distance Function Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1273-1298, November.
    14. Hailu, Atakelty & Veeman, Terrence S., 2000. "Environmentally Sensitive Productivity Analysis of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry, 1959-1994: An Input Distance Function Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 251-274, November.
    15. Francesc Hernández Sancho & Andrés Picazo & Ernest Reig Martínez, 1999. "- Shadow Prices And Distance Functions: An Analysis For Firms Of The Spanish Ceramic Pavements Industry," Working Papers. Serie EC 1999-19, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    16. Soledad Moya & Jordi Perramon & Anselm Constans, 2005. "IFRS Adoption in Europe: The Case of Germany," Working Papers 0501, Departament Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, revised Feb 2005.
    17. Khalil, Samina, 2012. "Measuring the Cost of Environment-Friendly Textile Processing in Pakistan: A Distance Function Approach," Bangladesh Development Studies, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), vol. 35(4), pages 29-45, December.
    18. Johan Brolund & Robert Lundmark, 2017. "Effect of Environmental Regulation Stringency on the Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Kwon, Oh Sang & Yun, Won-Cheol, 1999. "Estimation of the marginal abatement costs of airborne pollutants in Korea's power generation sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 545-558, December.
    20. Lee, Myunghun, 2007. "Measurement of the in situ value of exhaustible resources: An input distance function," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 490-495, May.
    21. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2001. "Productivité et réglementation environnementale: une analyse de l'hypothèse de Porter," Cahiers de recherche 0107, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    22. Graham, Mary, 2009. "Developing a social perspective to farm performance analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2390-2398, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Direct and indirect approaches; disposability; nitrogen pollution; nonparametric programming; shadow price;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
    • P - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems

    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:wpa:wuwpdc:0512023. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.