Public Evaluation and Political Acceptance of Sustainable Land Use Polices: A populist democracy policy failure?
This paper studies the ability of the political process to design public policies implying an effective and efficient provision of global and local environmental public goods. While it is commonly accepted that the market is unable to guarantee an efficient provision of public goods, such as environmental protection or food security, the question is if or under which condition political processes are efficient mechanisms of public good provision. Beyond policy failure due special interest politics policy failure also results from the fact that economic processes are often rather complex and hence laymen use simple mental models (political beliefs) to understand policy impacts. If political beliefs are biased political decision making based on public opinion leads to rather inefficient policies establishing the paradox of populist democracy policy failure. We use own choice experiment data on sustainable land use policy in Germany to estimate econometrically the WTP for relevant global and local environmental public goods as well as voters' political willingness-to-vote for specific land use policies. Based on these estimations we derive underlying political belief. Further, we assess to what extend a populist democracy policy failure results, i.e. to what extend policy choices driven by political beliefs imply inefficient land use policies when compared to the counterfactual evidence-based policy choices driven by model-based technological relations.
|Date of creation:||2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202|
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
- M. K. Haener & D. Dosman & W.L. Adomowicz & P.C. Boxall, 2001. "Can Stated Preference Methods be used to Value Attributes of Subsistence Hunting by Aboriginal Peoples? A Case Study in Northern Saskatchewan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1334-1340.
- Johan F. M. Swinnen & Liesbeth Dries & Karen Macours, 2005.
"Transition and agricultural labor,"
International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 15-34, 01.
- Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
- Caplan, Bryan, 2001. "Rational Irrationality and the Microfoundations of Political Failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 107(3-4), pages 311-31, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150494. 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: (AgEcon Search)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.