IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Analysis Of Situation, Structure, Conduct And Performance In Air Emission And Watershed Effluent Markets


  • Norris, Patricia E.
  • Brown, Elaine M.
  • Batie, Sandra S.


After much debate and many legislative proposals, the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 to allow more flexibility in meeting emissions standards for SO2. Specifically, an SO2 emissions allowance trading program was implemented. Firms can meet emission standards by any pollution control method, including buying emission allowances from other firms. Analysts have concluded that, with the changes in the Clean Air Act, SO2 emissions have been reduced by 50 percent and at an estimated $7 billion less than the anticipated cost of the regulatory command-and-control system. Not surprisingly, policy analysts have explored the opportunities for implementing similar market-based systems for water pollution control. Because much of the on-going impairment of surface water has been attributed to nonpoint sources of pollution, trading programs which incorporate both point and nonpoint discharges are of particular interest. However, despite as many as six efforts across the nation to implement point-nonpoint effluent credit trading programs to reduce nutrient discharges to water, there have been few trades to date. This research was undertaken to answer the following question: Do current barriers to effluent credit trading programs arise because of fundamental differences between air and water media or because of differences between institutions affecting air and water use, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act? Economic theory offers the situation, structure, conduct, and performance (SSCP) framework, developed by industrial organization economists and extended by institutional and environmental economists, within which to address this research question. In the language of the SSCP framework, the research question can be reframed as: are there fundamental differences in the situation and structure of emission allowance markets and effluent credit markets which result in conduct and performance differences? A comparative analysis of situation and structure suggests that barriers to effective nutrient discharge credit markets are not a result of fundamental differences in the air and water media or the materials being discharged into air and water. Rather, the barriers exist because of structural differences differences in institutional structure, program design and program implementation. Many of the structural barriers result from the Clean Water Act and its implementation. More flexibility in water pollution prevention would effectively remove many of these barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Norris, Patricia E. & Brown, Elaine M. & Batie, Sandra S., 2002. "An Analysis Of Situation, Structure, Conduct And Performance In Air Emission And Watershed Effluent Markets," Staff Papers 11798, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11798

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Burtraw, Dallas & Bohi, Douglas, 1997. "SO2 Allowance Trading: How Experience and Expectations Measure Up," Discussion Papers dp-97-24, Resources For the Future.
    2. Burtraw, Dallas, 1998. "Cost Savings, Market Performance and Economic Benefits of the U.S. Acid Rain Program," Discussion Papers dp-98-28-rev, Resources For the Future.
    3. Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "Lessons Learned from SO2 Allowance Trading," Choices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(1).
    4. Kurt Stephenson & Patricia Norris & Leonard Shabman, 1998. "Watershed-Based Effluent Trading: The Nonpoint Source Challenge," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(4), pages 412-421, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Environmental Economics and Policy;


    Access and download statistics


    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:ags:midasp:11798. 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.