IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Icelandic debate on the case for a fishing fee: a non-technical introduction


  • Matthíasson, Thórólfur


Research by J.D. Sachs and A.M. Warner, indicates that resource-rich countries are less successful in terms of economic growth than are resource-poor countries. The question of what measures Icelanders need to take to prevent their fishery wealth from limiting economic growth is posed. The main body of the essay discusses arguments for a fishing fee. The principal arguments for a fishing fee are listed. One type of argument concerns flexibility, with a view to possibly introducing other forms of management or altering the distribution of profit in the future. Another type of argument concerns equity and fairness, contending that having a fishing fee makes it easier to ensure that the entire nation enjoys the benefit of the resource. A third type of argument is connected to risk-management, maintaining that, if properly arranged, a fishing fee would make it possible to offer vessel operators an indirect insurance policy which otherwise would not be available to them. The fourth type of argument concerns counter-cyclical policy and the problem of co-habitation of the fishery industry and other export industries and refers to the possibility of wage earners and/or taxpayers being forced (or tempted) to apply general policy instruments to secure a portion of the fishery rent. The general measures available to obtain a piece of the fishery rent share a common failing: their use unavoidably increases costs for other sectors of industry and thus limits possibilities for growth in those sectors and links their performance to fisheries performance. Then there are arguments for neutrality, based on the idea that the so-called resource rent taxes should not affect the use of the factors of production. Finally, there are economic growth arguments, which can be linked to theories of rent-seeking and Dutch disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthíasson, Thórólfur, 2001. "The Icelandic debate on the case for a fishing fee: a non-technical introduction," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 303-312, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:25:y:2001:i:4:p:303-312

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:


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

    Cited by:

    1. Gylfason, Thorvaldur & Weitzman, Martin, 2003. "Icelandic Fisheries Management: Fees versus Quotas," CEPR Discussion Papers 3849, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Thorolfur Matthiasson, 2002. "J. Peter Clinch, Kai Schlegelmilch, Rolf-Ulrich Sprenger and Ursula Triebswetter (Ed), 2002, Greening the Budget: Budgetary Policies for Environmental Improvement," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 485-488, December.
    3. Fridrik Baldursson & Jon Sturluson, 2011. "Fees and the Efficiency of Tradable Permit Systems: An Experimental Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 25-41, January.
    4. Saevaldsson, Hordur & Gunnlaugsson, Stefan B., 2015. "The Icelandic pelagic sector and its development under an ITQ management system," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 207-215.

    More about this item


    Fishery management Transferable quotas Equity and social justice;

    JEL classification:

    • D45 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Rationing; Licensing
    • H29 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Other
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery


    Access and download statistics


    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:marpol:v:25:y:2001:i:4:p:303-312. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.