IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Voting for environmental policy under income and preference heterogeneity

  • Huhtala, Anni
  • Eerola, Essi

We examine the design of policies for promoting the consumption of green products under preference and income heterogeneity using organic food products as an example. Two instruments are considered: a price subsidy for the organic food products and a tax on the conventional products. Under income disparity, consumers with high income always prefer a socially optimal subsidy to a socially optimal tax, while low-income consumers prefer a tax on conventional products. When environmental policy is determined by the median voter, the policies implemented tend to be stricter than socially optimal policies if income differences are large.

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: http://purl.umn.edu/11863
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by MTT Agrifood Research Finland in its series Discussion Papers with number 11863.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:mttfdp:11863
Contact details of provider: Postal: Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki
Phone: +358-20-772 004
Fax: +358-20-772 0403
Web page: http://www.mtt.fi/english

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.:

as in new window
  1. Hamilton, Stephen F. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2003. "Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: the case of food safety," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 799-817, March.
  2. Metcalf, Gilbert E., 1999. "A Distributional Analysis of Green Tax Reforms," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(n. 4), pages 655-82, December.
  3. Thomas Bue Bjorner & Lars Garn Hansen & Clifford S. Russell, 2002. "Environmental Labelling and Consumer's Choice - An Empirical Analysis of the Effect of the Nordic Swan," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0203, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
  4. Annegrete Bruvoll & Karine Nyborg, 2004. "The Cold Shiver of Not Giving Enough: On the Social Cost of Recycling Campaigns," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(4).
  5. Gary D. Thompson & Julia Kidwell, 1998. "Explaining the Choice of Organic Produce: Cosmetic Defects, Prices, and Consumer Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 277-287.
  6. Brooks, Nancy & Sethi, Rajiv, 1997. "The Distribution of Pollution: Community Characteristics and Exposure to Air Toxics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-250, February.
  7. Nyborg, Karine & Howarth, Richard B. & Brekke, Kjell Arne, 2003. "Green consumers and public policy: On socially contingent moral motivation," Memorandum 31/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
  8. Pauline M. Ippolito, 2003. "Asymmetric Information in Product Markets: Looking to Other Sectors for Institutional Approaches," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 731-736.
  9. West, Sarah E., 2004. "Distributional effects of alternative vehicle pollution control policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 735-757, March.
  10. McAusland, Carol, 2003. "Voting for pollution policy: the importance of income inequality and openness to trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 425-451, December.
  11. Jeffrey R. Blend & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay, 1999. "Measuring Consumer Demand for Ecolabeled Apples," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1072-1077.
  12. West, Sarah E. & Williams, R.C.Roberton III, 2004. "Estimates from a consumer demand system: implications for the incidence of environmental taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 535-558, May.
  13. Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe & Alan S. Levy, 1999. "Ecocertification: Why It May Not Be a “Field of Dreams”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1066-1071.
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:ags:mttfdp:11863. 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 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.