IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v134y2017icp123-129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competitive Lobbying over Common Pool Resource Regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Freeman, Matthew A.
  • Anderson, Christopher M.

Abstract

Common-pool resource regulations are developed through a combination of resource assessment, economic analysis, and politics. We investigate a management institution wherein users can influence a proposed common extraction cap through costly effort, or lobbying. Our model incorporates two user types: a few harvesters who efficiently handle extraction externalities, and a larger number who do not. Without regulation, we observe the efficient harvesters extracting more than the social optimum, consistent with Nash equilibrium. Given the opportunity to lobby, we observe harvesters contributing to move inefficient proposed caps toward more efficient levels. However, lobbying is a public good and, consistent with Nash equilibrium, the user type with weaker preference free rides on the type with stronger preferences leading to insufficient lobbying and inefficient regulations, especially when the cap must be lowered. This highlights an important limitation to participatory governance mechanisms when participation is costly.

Suggested Citation

  • Freeman, Matthew A. & Anderson, Christopher M., 2017. "Competitive Lobbying over Common Pool Resource Regulations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 123-129.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:134:y:2017:i:c:p:123-129
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915304158
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walker, James M, et al, 2000. "Collective Choice in the Commons: Experimental Results on Proposed Allocation Rules and Votes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(460), pages 212-234, January.
    2. Matthew Turner & Quinn Weninger, 2005. "Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 247-268.
    3. Dichmont, Catherine Mary & Pascoe, Sean & Jebreen, Edward & Pears, Rachel & Brooks, Kate & Perez, Pascal, 2013. "Choosing a fishery’s governance structure using data poor methods," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 123-131.
    4. Jan T.R. Stoop & Daan P. van Soest & Jana Vyrastekova, 2013. "A tale of two carrots: the effectiveness of multiple reward stages in a common pool resource game," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.),Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 10, pages 291-318, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Myagkov, Mikhail & Plott, Charles R, 1997. "Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 801-828, December.
    6. Martin J. Osborne & Jeffrey S. Rosenthal & Matthew A. Turner, 2005. "Meetings with Costly Participation: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1351-1354, September.
    7. Anderson, Christopher M. & Putterman, Louis, 2006. "Do non-strategic sanctions obey the law of demand? The demand for punishment in the voluntary contribution mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Johnson, Ronald N & Libecap, Gary D, 1982. "Contracting Problems and Regulation: The Case of the Fishery," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1005-1022, December.
    9. Cherry, Todd L. & Cotten, Stephen J. & Jones, Luke R., 2013. "The appropriation of endogenously provided common-pool resources," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 329-341.
    10. Walker, James M. & Gardner, Roy & Ostrom, Elinor, 1990. "Rent dissipation in a limited-access common-pool resource: Experimental evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 203-211, November.
    11. Barley Kincaid, Kate & Rose, George A., 2014. "Why fishers want a closed area in their fishing grounds: Exploring perceptions and attitudes to sustainable fisheries and conservation 10 years post closure in Labrador, Canada," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 84-90.
    12. Jeff Dayton-Johnson & Pranab Bardhan, 2002. "Inequality And Conservation On The Local Commons: A Theoretical Exercise," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 577-602, July.
    13. Tracy Yandle, 2006. "Sharing natural resource management responsibility: Examining the New Zealand rock lobster co-management experience," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 249-278, September.
    14. Pomeroy, Robert S & Berkes, Fikret, 1997. "Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 465-480, September.
    15. Apesteguia, Jose, 2006. "Does information matter in the commons?: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-69, May.
    16. Matthew Turner & Quinn Weninger, 2005. "Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 247-268.
    17. Okey, Thomas A., 2003. "Membership of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils in the United States: are special interests over-represented?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 193-206, May.
    18. Magdalena Margreiter & Matthias Sutter & Dennis Dittrich, 2005. "Individual and Collective Choice and Voting in Common Pool Resource Problem with Heterogeneous Actors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(2), pages 241-271, October.
    19. Matthew Freeman & Christopher Anderson, 2013. "Modeling Effort and Lobbying in a Heterogeneous Common Pool Resource Setting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 399-414, November.
    20. Ostrom, Elinor, 2006. "The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 149-163, October.
    21. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eee:ecolec:v:134:y:2017:i:c:p:123-129. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.