IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v31y2026i2-3p279-299_10.html

Choice of environmental policy instrument in developing countries: an application to fire regulation in the Brazilian Amazon

Author

Listed:
  • Friol Gimenes, Erich
  • Fonseca Morello, Thiago

Abstract

Market-based instruments are increasingly incorporated into developing countries’ environmental regulation, which has historically been dominated by command-and-control (CAC). To discover whether this shift can enhance efficiency, the two policy instruments are compared in the context of agricultural fire regulation. We unveil optimal policy principles, such as incentivizing compliance proportionally to non-compliance’s net benefit. A simulation based on data from Brazilian Amazon municipalities accounts for ambiguous land tenure, indirect deforestation and non-additionality. The results reveal that CAC, when perfectly sanctioned, is more efficient than market-based policy. Such primacy is exacerbated in the realistic case where sanctions are likely to be cancelled on appeal to the judicial power and legally limited in size, because of the opportunities to better address adverse selection and to generate revenue with fines. Therefore, we show that market-based policy is not necessarily superior to CAC and that imperfect sanctioning does not inevitably lead to inefficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Friol Gimenes, Erich & Fonseca Morello, Thiago, 2026. "Choice of environmental policy instrument in developing countries: an application to fire regulation in the Brazilian Amazon," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2-3), pages 279-299, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:31:y:2026:i:2-3:p:279-299_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X25100363/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:endeec:v:31:y:2026:i:2-3:p:279-299_10. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    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.