IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v45y2002i1p129-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emission versus Input Taxes for Diffuse Nitrate Pollution Control in the Presence of Transaction Costs

Author

Listed:
  • Athanasios Kampas
  • Ben White

Abstract

The most important obstacle to solving diffuse pollution problems is that emissions are either unobservable or cannot be observed at a reasonable cost. Biophysical models may provide sufficient information to set a cost-effective emission tax. However, evidence from recent studies has shown that transaction costs for emission-based policies are higher per hectare than for input-based policies. An economic model of agriculture for the Kennet catchment in south-east England shows that, when transaction costs are accounted for, an input tax is more efficient than an emission tax over a range of emission standards. This result has policy implications in that it indicates, first, that economists' policy recommendations should account for transaction costs, and, secondly, that the standard advice that emission-based policies are superior may be wrong where transaction costs differ substantially between emission- and input-based policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Athanasios Kampas & Ben White, 2002. "Emission versus Input Taxes for Diffuse Nitrate Pollution Control in the Presence of Transaction Costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 129-139.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:45:y:2002:i:1:p:129-139
    DOI: 10.1080/09640560120100222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560120100222
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krupnick, Alan & Austin, David & Morton, Brian & McConnell, Virginia & Stoessell, Terrell & Cannon, Matthew, 1998. "The Chesapeake Bay and the Control of NOx Emissions: A Policy Analysis," Discussion Papers dp-98-46, Resources For the Future.
    2. Ribaudo, Marc & Horan, Richard D. & Smith, Mark E., 1999. "Economics of Water Quality Protection from Nonpoint Sources: Theory and Practice," Agricultural Economic Reports 33913, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Scott Steele, 2010. "An Organisational Discussion of Incomplete Contracting and Transaction Costs in Conservation Contracts," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 163-174, February.
    2. Leon-Santana, Miguel & Hernandez, Juan M., 2008. "Optimum management and environmental protection in the aquaculture industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 849-857, February.
    3. Innocent Bakam & Robin Matthews, 2009. "Emission trading in agriculture: a study of design options using an agent-based approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 14(8), pages 755-776, December.
    4. Philippe Le Goffe, 2005. "Le projet de loi sur I'eau : une réflexion économique," Working Papers hal-02306148, HAL.
    5. Graham, Tennille & White, Benedict & Pannell, David J., 2003. "Efficiency Policies for Salinity Management: Preliminary Research from a Spatial and Dynamic Metamodel," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57879, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Scharin, Henrik, 2004. "Management of eutrophicated coastal zones," Department of Economics publications 717, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:45:y:2002:i:1:p:129-139. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.