IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Honnêteté et conformité environnementale


  • Philippe Bontems
  • Gilles Rotillon


[eng] Integrity and Environmental Compliance by Philippe Bontems and Gilles Rotillon . We here study how the existence of conscientious attitudes affects the working of compliance between an environmental agency and polluting firms, where the supervision policy may or may not include firms' self-reporting of discharges. Two main findings have been made. Firstly, non-interference may be the best policy for the agency if there is a high enough proportion of conscientious firms. Secondly, contrary to what we might expect, an exogenous increase in the number of conscientious firms does not necessarily lead to a decrease in pollution. We show that it is in fact possible that, given the number of conscientious firms, the optimum probability of inspection is low enough to entail a growth in fraud and therefore pollution. Moreover, with the system of self-reporting, which is the optimum option, an increase in the number of conscientious firms may also in some cases involve an increase in the total cost of inspection and, ultimately, welfare losses. [fre] Nous étudions dans cette note les conséquences de l'existence de comportement d'honnêteté dans un jeu de conformité entre une agence environnementale et des firmes polluantes où la politique de contrôle comprend ou non une auto-déclaration des firmes en ce qui concerne les rejets polluants. . Deux résultats principaux sont obtenus. Premièrement, le laissez-faire peut être une politique optimale pour l'agence quand la proportion de firmes honnêtes est suffisamment grande. Deuxièmement, contrairement à l'intuition, un accroissement exogène du nombre de firmes honnêtes ne conduit pas nécessairement à une diminution de la pollution. Nous montrons en effet qu'il se peut que compte tenu du nombre d'honnêtes la probabilité d'inspection optimale soit suffisamment faible pour impliquer un accroissement de la fraude et donc de la pollution. De plus, avec le mécanisme d'auto-déclaration, qu'il est optimal de mettre en place, l'accroissement du nombre d'honnêtes peut aussi dans certains cas impliquer un accroissement du coût d'inspection total et in fine des pertes de bien-être.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Bontems & Gilles Rotillon, 2000. "Honnêteté et conformité environnementale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 143(2), pages 117-127.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2000_num_143_2_6095
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecop.2000.6095

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Malik Arun S., 1993. "Self-Reporting and the Design of Policies for Regulating Stochastic Pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 241-257, May.
    2. James Andreoni & Brian Erard & Jonathan Feinstein, 1998. "Tax Compliance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 818-860, June.
    3. George J. Stigler, 1974. "The Optimum Enforcement of Laws," NBER Chapters,in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 55-67 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Saïd Souam, 1998. "Dissuasion de la collusion et efficacité de deux systèmes d'amendes," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 49(3), pages 755-765.
    5. Brian Erard & Jonathan S. Feinstein, 1994. "Honesty and Evasion in the Tax Compliance Game," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
    6. Picard, Pierre, 1996. "Auditing claims in the insurance market with fraud: The credibility issue," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 27-56, December.
    7. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting of Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(3), pages 583-606, June.
    8. Jones, Carol Adaire & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 1990. "The social cost of uniform regulatory standards in a hierarchical government," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-72, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    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:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2000_num_143_2_6095. 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: (Equipe PERSEE). 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.

    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.