Deciding between development and preservation of a natural asset: a way out of the impasse?
Many environmental policy issues involve conflicts between nature conservation and economic development. The economic rationale behind deciding among alternative options is predicated on some form of benefit-cost analysis (BCA). Key issues to date have been non-market valuation, the effectiveness of the precautionary principle or safe minimum standard, discounting, uncertainty, and how the decision making process implements BCA results. To date, no satisfactory mechanism seems to have been found that reconciles conflicting interests with social welfare, the Hicks-Kaldor criterion falling short. This is because BCA has been conceived of and implemented within a technocratic process, which impinges on all aspects of benefit-cost definition and BCA results, leading to economically arbitrary and socially indeterminate outcomes. An alternative model is proposed, applied to discrete, partly excludable, non-rival but congestible public goods. It is based on mechanism design theory, leading to a democratic, rather than technocratic, social choice mechanism. BCA and optimal mechanism design are combined in a way that renews provision and distribution of information and revelation of social preferences. The role of stated preference techniques, such as contingent valuation, is radically redefined. The model is referred to an Australian case of mining in a National Park.
|Date of creation:||1999|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200|
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
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.:
- Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001.
"The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?,"
Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
- Hege Medin & Karine Nyborg & Ian Bateman, 1998. "The Assumption of Equal Marginal Utility of Income: How Much Does it Matter?," Discussion Papers 241, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
- Leonard Shabman & Kurt Stephenson, 1996. "Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 433-449.
- Blamey, Russell K. & Common, Mick S. & Quiggin, John C., 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens? - Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(02), August.
- R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?— Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 135-138, 08.
- Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
- Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.
- John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1996. "Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 450-461.
- Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
- Lunander, Anders, 1998. "Inducing Incentives to Understate and to Overstate Willingness to Pay within the Open-Ended and the Dichotomous-Choice Elicitation Formats: An Experimental Study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 88-102, January.
- Deborah Vaughn Nestor, 1998. "Policy Evaluation with Combined Actual and Contingent Response Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 264-276.
- Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137.
- Stephen K. Swallow, 1994. "Value Elicitation in Laboratory Markets: Discussion and Applicability to Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1096-1100.
- Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
- M. Shechter & B. Reiser & N. Zaitsev, 1998. "Measuring Passive Use Value: Pledges, Donations and CV Responses in Connection with an Important Natural Resource," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 457-478, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare99:124547. 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.