IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v60y2015i1p81-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Economic Analysis of Earth Orbit Pollution

Author

Listed:
  • Nodir Adilov
  • Peter Alexander
  • Brendan Cunningham

Abstract

Space debris, an externality generated by expended launch vehicles and damaged satellites, reduces the expected value of space activities by increasing the probability of damaging existing satellites or other space vehicles. Unlike terrestrial pollution, debris created in the production process interacts with firms’ final products, and is, moreover, self-propagating: collisions between debris or extant satellites creates additional debris. We construct a formal model to explore private incentives to launch satellites and to mitigate space debris. The model predicts that, relative to the social optimum, firms launch too many satellites and choose technologies which create more debris than is socially optimal. We discuss remediation strategies and policies, and demonstrate that Pigovian taxes can be used to internalize the debris externality. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Nodir Adilov & Peter Alexander & Brendan Cunningham, 2015. "An Economic Analysis of Earth Orbit Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 81-98, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:60:y:2015:i:1:p:81-98
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-013-9758-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-013-9758-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-013-9758-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ernst Fehr & Susanne Kremhelmer & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2008. "Fairness and the Optimal Allocation of Ownership Rights," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(531), pages 1262-1284, August.
    2. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    3. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    4. W.A. Brock & D. Starrett, 2003. "Managing Systems with Non-convex Positive Feedback," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(4), pages 575-602, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Julien Guyot & Akhil Rao & Sebastien Rouillon, 2022. "The long-run economics of sustainable orbit use," Working Papers hal-03896730, HAL.
    2. Zachary Grzelka & Jeffrey Wagner, 2019. "Managing Satellite Debris in Low-Earth Orbit: Incentivizing Ex Ante Satellite Quality and Ex Post Take-Back Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 319-336, September.
    3. Bernhard, Pierre & Deschamps, Marc & Zaccour, Georges, 2023. "Large satellite constellations and space debris: Exploratory analysis of strategic management of the space commons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1140-1157.
    4. Bongers, Anelí & Torres, José L., 2023. "Orbital debris and the market for satellites," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    5. Jean‐Frédéric Morin & Benjamin Richard, 2021. "Astro‐Environmentalism: Towards a Polycentric Governance of Space Debris," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(4), pages 568-573, September.
    6. Aditya Jain & Akhil Rao, 2022. "International cooperation and competition in orbit-use management," Papers 2205.03926, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    7. Adilov, Nodir & Alexander, Peter J. & Cunningham, Brendan M., 2023. "The economics of satellite deorbiting performance bonds," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    8. Akhil Rao & Francesca Letizia, 2022. "An integrated debris environment assessment model," Papers 2205.05205, arXiv.org.

    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. Allen C. Goodman & Miron Stano, 2000. "Hmos and Health Externalities: A Local Public Good Perspective," Public Finance Review, , vol. 28(3), pages 247-269, May.
    2. Kopányi, Dávid, 2017. "The coexistence of stable equilibria under least squares learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 277-300.
    3. Corchón Luis Carlos & Zudenkova Galina, 2013. "The Welfare Effects of Location and Quality in Oligopoly," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1143-1178, July.
    4. Chad Syverson, 2001. "Output Market Segmentation and Productivity," Working Papers 01-07, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    5. Audretsch, David B. & Baumol, William J. & Burke, Andrew E., 2001. "Competition policy in dynamic markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 613-634, April.
    6. Gulati, Namrata & Ray, Tridip, 2016. "Inequality, neighbourhoods and welfare of the poor," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 214-228.
    7. Nishimura, Kiyohiko G., 1995. "Product innovation with mass-production: Insufficient or excessive?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 419-442, November.
    8. Qihong Liu & Konstantinos Serfes, 2005. "Imperfect price discrimination, market structure, and efficiency," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1191-1203, November.
    9. Germano, Fabrizio & Meier, Martin, 2013. "Concentration and self-censorship in commercial media," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 117-130.
    10. Marquez, Robert, 1997. "A note on Bertrand competition with asymmetric fixed costs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 87-96, November.
    11. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    12. William R. Emmons & Frank A. Schmid, 2004. "When for-profits and not-for-profits compete: theory and empirical evidence from retail banking," Supervisory Policy Analysis Working Papers 2004-01, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
    13. Yukihiko Funaki & Harold Houba & Evgenia Motchenkova, 2020. "Market power in bilateral oligopoly markets with non-expandable infrastructures," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(2), pages 525-546, June.
    14. Kesternich, Iris & Schumacher, Heiner & Van Biesebroeck, Johannes & Grant, Iris, 2020. "Market size and competition: A “hump-shaped” result," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Bouckaert, Jan & Degryse, Hans, 1995. "Phonebanking," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 229-244, February.
    16. Hans Degryse & Steven Ongena, 2005. "Distance, Lending Relationships, and Competition," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 231-266, February.
    17. Andreas Hefti & Shuo Liu & Armin Schmutzler, 2022. "Preferences, Confusion and Competition," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(645), pages 1852-1881.
    18. Mario Pezzino, 2010. "Hospital competition when patients have different willingness to pay for quality," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1014, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    19. Gu Yiquan & Wenzel Tobias, 2012. "Price-Dependent Demand in Spatial Models," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, March.
    20. Simon P. Anderson & Regis Renault, 1999. "Pricing, Product Diversity, and Search Costs: A Bertrand-Chamberlin-Diamond Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(4), pages 719-735, Winter.

    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:kap:enreec:v:60:y:2015:i:1:p:81-98. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.