IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v140y2025i2p1003-1060..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Pollution Markets Work in Developing Countries? Experimental Evidence from India

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Greenstone
  • Rohini Pande
  • Nicholas Ryan
  • Anant Sudarshan

Abstract

Market-based environmental regulations are seldom used in low-income countries, where pollution is highest but state capacity is often low. We collaborated with the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) to design and experimentally evaluate the world’s first particulate-matter emissions market, which covered industrial plants in a large Indian city. There are three main findings. First, the market functioned well. Treatment plants, randomly assigned to the emissions market, traded permits to become significant net sellers or buyers. After trading, treatment plants held enough permits to cover their emissions 99% of the time, compared with just 66% compliance with standards under the command-and-control status quo. Second, treatment plants reduced pollution emissions, relative to control plants, by 20%–30%. Third, the market reduced abatement costs by an estimated 11%, holding constant emissions. This cost-savings estimate is based on plant-specific marginal cost curves that we estimate from the universe of bids to buy and sell permits in the market. The combination of pollution reductions and low costs imply that the emissions market has mortality benefits that exceed its costs by at least 25 times.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Greenstone & Rohini Pande & Nicholas Ryan & Anant Sudarshan, 2025. "Can Pollution Markets Work in Developing Countries? Experimental Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 140(2), pages 1003-1060.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:140:y:2025:i:2:p:1003-1060.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/qje/qjaf009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:qjecon:v:140:y:2025:i:2:p:1003-1060.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    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.