IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Not equitable, not efficient: U.S. policy on low-level radioactive waste disposal

Listed author(s):
  • Dennis Coates

    (Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

  • Victoria Heid

    (Budget Analyst, Fiscal Research Division, Maryland General Assembly)

  • Michael Munger

    (Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

Elected officials and policy analysts alike often treat equity and efficiency as distinct concerns. In this case study, focusing on U.S. policy for disposing of low-level radioactive waste, we consider an instance where the distinction between equity and efficiency is difficult to sustain. The “equity, then efficiency” approach embodied in the compact system of regional agreements is largely to blame for the current crisis facing generators, regulatory officials, and citizens. We find that nearly three times more waste disposal facilities are being contemplated than are financially viable. More generally, it is claimed that the approach for achieving an equitable solution must be very carefully designed, and that the concept of economic efficiency must be considered (at least in this case study) as part of the definition of equity. This case study is unusual, because we are able to make a recommendation that improves both efficiency and equity.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

Volume (Year): 13 (1994)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 526-538

in new window

Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:13:y:1994:i:3:p:526-538
DOI: 10.2307/3325390
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
  2. Christopher K. Leman & Robert H. Nelson, 1982. "Ten commandments for policy economists," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(1), pages 97-117.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:13:y:1994:i:3:p:526-538. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.