Comparing the Net Benefits of Incentice Based and Command and Control Regulations in a Developing Context: the Case of Santiago, Chile
There are numerous studies that establish the magnitude of the static efficiency gains made possible through the use of a cost effective ambient permit system (APS) compared to command and control (CAC) or other suboptimal instruments such as an emission permit system (EPS). However the cost effectiveness of APS rests both on the efficiency gains related to equalizing marginal costs of reduction and a lower degree of required control. As a result of this latter factor, CAC and EPS generally impose concentration reductions higher than required by the target air quality standard and also by APS. In developing contexts, as a result of high levels of pollution and only recent introduction of control policies, health benefits of reducing pollution significantly can be expected to be high whereas the costs may still be relatively low. Consequently the excess reductions may produce net benefits -benefits of improved air quality minus compliance costs-. This paper evaluates for Santiago whether reduced concentrations below the level of the standard as a result of suboptimal policies resultin health improvements that produce greater net benefits than incentive based approaches. The results show that considering uniform air quality targets and for the range of technologically plausible control options in Santiago, suboptimal CAC and EPS policies result in higher net benefits than APS.
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.:
- O'Ryan, Raul E., 1996. "Cost-Effective Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality in Santiago, Chile," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 302-313, November.
- Krupnick, Alan J., 1986. "Costs of alternative policies for the control of nitrogen dioxide in Baltimore," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 189-197, June.
- Seskin, Eugene P. & Anderson, Robert Jr. & Reid, Robert O., 1983. "An empirical analysis of economic strategies for controlling air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 112-124, June.
- Oates, Wallace E & Portney, Paul R & McGartland, Albert M, 1989. "The Net Benefits of Incentive-Based Regulation: A Case Study of Environmental Standard Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1233-42, December.
- Atkinson, Scott E. & Lewis, Donald H., 1974. "A cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative air quality control strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 237-250, November.
- Montero, Juan-Pablo & Sanchez, Jose Miguel & Katz, Ricardo, 2002.
"A Market-Based Environmental Policy Experiment in Chile,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(1), pages 267-87, April.
- Juan-Pablo Montero & José Miguel Sánchez & Ricardo Katz, 2000. "A Market-Based Environmental Policy Experiment in Chile," Documentos de Trabajo 192, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
- McGartland, Albert M. & Oates, Wallace E., 1985. "Marketable permits for the prevention of environmental deterioration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 207-228, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:edj:ceauch:148. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.