Are The Costs of Proposed Environmental Regulations Overestimated? Evidence from the CFC Phaseout
Benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis are often advocated fordecision making about environmental, health, and safety regulations, butthere has been little research evaluating the accuracy of prospectiveestimates of regulatory costs and benefits. Prospective estimates of themarginal cost of limiting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) consumption in theUnited States, published shortly before and after the September 1987adoption of the Montreal Protocol, are compared with retrospectiveestimates based on realized market prices. Estimates published beforeinternational regulations were adopted (in May 1986) substantiallyoverestimate the marginal costs of limiting CFC-11 and CFC-12consumption but modestly underestimate the costs of limiting CFC-113consumption. In contrast, estimates published shortly after adoption of theProtocol (in August 1988) appear to underestimate the marginal cost oflimiting CFC consumption. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 16 (2000)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Postal:c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy
Web page: http://www.eaere.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Arrow, Kenneth J. & Cropper, Maureen L. & Eads, George C. & Hahn, Robert W. & Lave, Lester B. & Noll, Roger G. & Portney, Paul R. & Russell, Milson & Schmalensee, Richard & Smith, V. Kerry & Stavins, , 1997. "Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 195-221, May.
- Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
- Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
- Thomas A. Barthold, 1994. "Issues in the Design of Environmental Excise Taxes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 133-151, Winter.
- Shlyakhter, Alexander I. & Kammen, Daniel M. & Broido, Claire L. & Wilson, Richard, 1994. "Quantifying the credibility of energy projections from trends in past data : The US energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 119-130, February.
- Ellerman, A. Denny & Montero, Juan-Pablo, 1998. "The Declining Trend in Sulfur Dioxide Emissions: Implications for Allowance Prices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 26-45, July.
- Dechow, Patricia M. & Sloan, Richard G., 1997. "Returns to contrarian investment strategies: Tests of naive expectations hypotheses," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 3-27, January.