IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwm/wpaper/27.html

Should You Turn Yourself In? The Consequences of Environmental Self-Policing

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah L. Stafford

    (Department of Economics, College of William and Mary)

Abstract

Facilities that self-police under the Environmental Protection AgencyÕs Audit Policy are eligible for reduced penalties on disclosed violations. This paper investigates whether self- policing has additional consequences, in particular whether self-policing reduces future enforcement activity. Using data on U.S. hazardous waste enforcement and disclosures, I find that facilities that self-police are rewarded with a lower probability of inspection in the future, although facilities with good compliance records may receive a smaller benefit than facilities with poor records. Additionally, facilities that are inspected frequently are more likely to disclose than facilities that face a low probability of inspection. The results suggest that facilities may be able to strategically disclose in order to decrease future enforcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah L. Stafford, 2006. "Should You Turn Yourself In? The Consequences of Environmental Self-Policing," Working Papers 27, Economics Department, William & Mary, revised 08 Sep 2006.
    • Handle: RePEc:cwm:wpaper:27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economics.wm.edu/wp/cwm_wp27rev2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Pfaff & Chris William Sanchirico, 2004. "Big field, small potatoes: An empirical assessment of EPA's self-audit policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 415-432.
    2. Innes, Robert, 2000. "Self-Reporting in Optimal Law Enforcement When Violators Have Heterogeneous Probabilities of Apprehension," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 287-300, January.
    3. Innes, Robert, 1999. "Remediation and self-reporting in optimal law enforcement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 379-393, June.
    4. Heyes, Anthony G., 1996. "Cutting environmental penalties to protect the environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 251-265, May.
    5. Innes, Robert, 2001. "Violator Avoidance Activities and Self-Reporting in Optimal Law Enforcement," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 239-256, April.
    6. Eric Helland, 1998. "The Enforcement Of Pollution Control Laws: Inspections, Violations, And Self-Reporting," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 141-153, February.
    7. Harrington, Winston, 1988. "Enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 29-53, October.
    8. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    9. Harford, Jon D. & Harrington, Winston, 1991. "A reconsideration of enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 391-395, August.
    10. Livernois, John & McKenna, C. J., 1999. "Truth or consequences: Enforcing pollution standards with self-reporting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 415-440, March.
    11. Sarah L. Stafford, 2008. "Self‐Policing in a Targeted Enforcement Regime," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(4), pages 934-951, April.
    12. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting of Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(3), pages 583-606, June.
    13. Friesen, Lana, 2003. "Targeting enforcement to improve compliance with environmental regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 72-85, July.
    14. Morgenstern, Richard D., 1996. "Does the Provision of Free Technical Information Really Influence Firm Behavior?," Discussion Papers 10750, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sang-Hyun Kim, 2015. "Time to Come Clean? Disclosure and Inspection Policies for Green Production," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Etienne, Julien, 2010. "Self-reporting untoward events to external controllers: accounting for reporting failure by a top tier chemical plant," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36546, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Allen Blackman, 2012. "Does eco-certification boost regulatory compliance in developing countries? ISO 14001 in Mexico," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 242-263, December.
    4. Paul J. Ferraro & Jay P. Shimshack, 2026. "The effect of compliance assistance on pollution discharges and violations of environmental regulations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(3), June.
    5. Blackman, Allen & Lahiri, Bidisha & Pizer, William & Rivera Planter, Marisol & Muñoz Piña, Carlos, 2010. "Voluntary environmental regulation in developing countries: Mexico's Clean Industry Program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 182-192, November.
    6. Evans, Mary F. & Liu, Lirong & Stafford, Sarah L., 2015. "Standardization and the impacts of voluntary program participation: Evidence from environmental auditing," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 10-21.
    7. Sarah L. Stafford, 2008. "Self‐Policing in a Targeted Enforcement Regime," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(4), pages 934-951, April.
    8. Yayun Shen & Michael Faure, 0. "Green building in China," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    9. repec:ehl:lserod:128531 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Vicki M. Bier & Shi‐Woei Lin, 2013. "Should the Model for Risk‐Informed Regulation be Game Theory Rather than Decision Theory?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 281-291, February.
    11. Mary Evans & Lirong Liu & Sarah Stafford, 2011. "Do environmental audits improve long-term compliance? Evidence from manufacturing facilities in Michigan," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 279-302, December.
    12. Robert Innes, 2017. "Lie aversion and self-reporting in optimal law enforcement," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 107-131, October.
    13. Yayun Shen & Michael Faure, 2021. "Green building in China," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 183-199, June.
    14. Lucio Baccaro & Valentina Mele, 2012. "Pathology of Path Dependency? The ILO and the Challenge of New Governance," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 65(2), pages 195-224, April.
    15. Raphael Calel & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Frank Venmans, 2025. "Policing carbon markets," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(9), pages 1489-1507, October.
    16. Valentina Mele & Donald Schepers, 2013. "E Pluribus Unum? Legitimacy Issues and Multi-stakeholder Codes of Conduct," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 561-576, December.
    17. Sarah Stafford, 2013. "How predictable are environmental compliance inspections?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 361-388, December.
    18. Earnhart, Dietrich & Harrington, Donna Ramirez, 2014. "Effect of audits on the extent of compliance with wastewater discharge limits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 243-261.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarah L. Stafford, 2008. "Self‐Policing in a Targeted Enforcement Regime," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(4), pages 934-951, April.
    2. Alm, James & Shimshack, Jay, 2014. "Environmental Enforcement and Compliance: Lessons from Pollution, Safety, and Tax Settings," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 209-274, December.
    3. Lin, Shi-Woei, 2010. "Self-reporting mechanism for risk regulation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 528-534, May.
    4. Michael W. Toffel, 2008. "Coerced Confessions: Self-Policing in the Shadow of the Regulator," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 45-71, May.
    5. Timo Goeschl & Ole Jürgens, 2014. "Criminalizing environmental offences: when the prosecutor’s helping hand hurts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 199-219, April.
    6. Friesen, Lana, 2006. "The social welfare implications of industry self-auditing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 280-294, May.
    7. Carmen Arguedas, 2013. "Pollution standards, technology investment and fines for non-compliance," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 156-176, October.
    8. Häckner, Jonas & Herzing, Mathias, 2017. "The effectiveness of environmental inspections in oligopolistic markets," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-97.
    9. Tihitina Andarge & Erik Lichtenberg, 2020. "Regulatory compliance under enforcement gaps," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 181-202, June.
    10. Robert Innes, 2017. "Lie aversion and self-reporting in optimal law enforcement," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 107-131, October.
    11. Michael W. Toffel & Jodi L. Short, 2011. "Coming Clean and Cleaning Up: Does Voluntary Self-Reporting Indicate Effective Self-Policing?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(3), pages 609-649.
    12. Eberhard Feess & Markus Walzl, 2005. "Optimal Self-Reporting Schemes with Multiple Stages and Option Values," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(3), pages 265-279, May.
    13. Heiko Gerlach, 2013. "Self-Reporting, Investigation, and Evidentiary Standards," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 1061-1090.
    14. Lars Hansen & Frank Jensen & Linda Nøstbakken, 2014. "Quota Enforcement in Resource Industries: Self-Reporting and Differentiated Inspections," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(4), pages 539-562, August.
    15. Takayoshi Shinkuma & Shunsuke Managi, 2012. "Effectiveness of policy against illegal disposal of waste," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 123-145, April.
    16. Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2006. "Leniency policies and illegal transactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1281-1297, August.
    17. Suurmond, Guido, 2007. "The effects of the enforcement strategy," MPRA Paper 21142, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Christian Langpap, 2007. "Pollution abatement with limited enforcement power and citizen suits," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 57-81, February.
    19. Stranlund, John K. & Murphy, James J. & Spraggon, John M., 2011. "An experimental analysis of compliance in dynamic emissions markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 414-429.
    20. Guerrero, Santiago & Innes, Robert, 2008. "Statutory Rewards to Environmental Self-Auditing: Do They Reduce Pollution and Save Regulatory Costs? Evidence from a Cross-State Panel," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6204, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:cwm:wpaper:27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathaniel Throckmorton (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decwmus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.