IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v75y1999i2p220-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Costs of Water Pollution Regulation in the Pulp and Paper Industry

Author

Listed:
  • John D. McClelland
  • John K. Horowitz

Abstract

This paper studies plant level data on actual and permitted levels of water pollution emissions for the pulp and paper industry. There is widespread and substantial overcompliance with the relevant regulations: aggregate BOD emissions in 1992 were only 50% of the amount allowed. Overcompliance appears to imply a zero marginal abatement cost and its prevalence therefore has the potential to substantially change the debate over the costs of regulation. We show instead that plants incurred substantial costs to overcomply. Marginal abatement costs were roughly $13,000/ton in 1992. We discuss possible explanations for costly overcompliance and their implications for estimation.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. McClelland & John K. Horowitz, 1999. "The Costs of Water Pollution Regulation in the Pulp and Paper Industry," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 220-232.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:75:y:1999:i:2:p:220-232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147007
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    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. Kling, Catherine L., 1988. "Comparing welfare estimates of environmental quality changes from recreation demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 331-340, September.
    2. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers 519, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    4. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    6. Cropper, Maureen L & Deck, Leland B & McConnell, Kenneth E, 1988. "On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price Functions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(4), pages 668-675, November.
    7. Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
    8. Anna Alberini, 1995. "Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(1), pages 83-95.
    9. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    10. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    11. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    12. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    13. Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
    14. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1992. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 302-317.
    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. Earnhart, Dietrich, 2007. "Effects of permitted effluent limits on environmental compliance levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 178-193, February.
    2. Chakraborti, Lopamudra, 2016. "Do plants’ emissions respond to ambient environmental quality? Evidence from the clean water act," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 55-69.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L., 2000. "Has Economic Research Answered the Needs of Environmental Policy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 328-350, May.
    4. Wade, Tara & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Secchi, Silvia, 2012. "Using the logit model with aggregated choice data in estimation of Iowa corn farmers’ conservation tillage subsidies," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124974, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Wu JunJie & Wirkkala Teresa M., 2009. "Firms' Motivations for Environmental Overcompliance," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 399-433, June.
    6. Anna Alberini & Kathleen Segerson, 2002. "Assessing Voluntary Programs to Improve Environmental Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 157-184.
    7. Shimshack, Jay P. & Ward, Michael B., 2008. "Enforcement and over-compliance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 90-105, January.
    8. Mary F. Evans & Scott M. Gilpatric & Jay P. Shimshack, 2015. "Enforcement spillovers: Lessons from strategic interactions in regulation and product markets," Working Papers 2015-08, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    9. Abdoul Sam, 2010. "Impact of government-sponsored pollution prevention practices on environmental compliance and enforcement: evidence from a sample of US manufacturing facilities," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 266-286, June.
    10. Dietrich Earnhart & Dylan G. Rassier, 2016. "“Effective regulatory stringency” and firms’ profitability: the effects of effluent limits and government monitoring," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 111-145, October.
    11. Bandyopadhyay Sushenjit & Horowitz John, 2006. "Do Plants Overcomply with Water Pollution Regulations? The Role of Discharge Variability," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, pages 1-32.
    12. Ujjayant Chakravorty & Céline Nauges & Henry Thille, 2012. "Gasoline Content Regulation and Compliance among US Refineries," CESifo Working Paper Series 3978, CESifo Group Munich.
    13. Lopamudra Chakraborti & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2012. "Does Ambient Water Quality Affect the Stringency of Regulations? Plant-Level Evidence of the Clean Water Act," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(3), pages 518-535.
    14. Matthew E. Kahn & Pei Li & Daxuan Zhao, 2013. "Pollution Control Effort at China's River Borders: When Does Free Riding Cease?," NBER Working Papers 19620, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Cody Jones, 2013. "Moving Beyond Profit: Expanding Research to Better Understand Business Environmental Management," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(6), pages 1-29, June.
    16. Blackman, Allen & Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Rivera Planter, Marisol, 2015. "A Contingent Valuation Approach to Estimating Regulatory Costs: Mexico’s Day Without Driving Program," Discussion Papers dp-15-21, Resources For the Future.
    17. Prasenjit Banerjee & Rupayan Pal & Jason F. Shogren, 2016. "Honor and stigma in mechanisms for environmental protection," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2016-017, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    18. Unmesh Patnaik & Santosh K. Sahu, 2016. "The Tradeoffs between GHGs Emissions,Income Inequality and Productivity," Working Papers 2016-144, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water

    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:uwp:landec:v:75:y:1999:i:2:p:220-232. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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 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.

    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.