IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/slucer/2012_012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equity over Efficiency: A Problem of Credibility in Scaling Resource-Based Compensatory?

Author

Listed:
  • Cole, Scott

    () (CERE, Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics)

Abstract

Resource-based compensation aims to offset the public's welfare loss associated with environmental injuries. Compensatory payments are frequently scaled using Equivalency Analysis (EA). EA's focus on ensuring equity in utility terms for the victim may lead to an inefficient outcome for society as it fails to incorporate the social opportunity cost of the compensatory payment. An alternative scaling approach based on Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) may better address the trade-offs facing society by considering the social marginal benefits of additional compensation, which may be a function of the cost of provision and the quality of existing resources. A simple numerical model illustrates the differences in scaling approaches. In contrast to EA, CBA suggests that the optimal compensatory payment may be positive, zero or negative (i.e., additional damage should be allowed). EA need not lead to a decline in welfare if the environmental damage or the costs of compensation are marginal, or if policy makers have a particular welfare function in mind vis a vis the polluter. The lack of credible methods for pricing non-market resources may lead to a preference by policy makers for the equity-focused EA approach rather than one aiming for socially efficient outcomes. Both methods require inevitable value judgments to determine whether society is, in fact, "no worse off" following compensation. EA seems in conflict with governments' otherwise increasing, but still limited, use of environmental CBA to direct scarce conservation resources to a variety of environmental challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Cole, Scott, 2012. "Equity over Efficiency: A Problem of Credibility in Scaling Resource-Based Compensatory?," CERE Working Papers 2012:12, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:slucer:2012_012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-sekon.slu.se/~gbost/CERE_WP2012-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Turner, 2007. "Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 253-269.
    2. Ferraro Paul J & Taylor Laura O, 2005. "Do Economists Recognize an Opportunity Cost When They See One? A Dismal Performance from the Dismal Science," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, pages 1-14.
    3. Daly, Herman E., 1992. "Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 185-193, December.
    4. George R. Parsons & Ami K. Kang, 2010. "Compensatory Restoration In A Random Utility Model Of Recreation Demand," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(4), pages 453-463, October.
    5. Dunford, Richard W. & Ginn, Thomas C. & Desvousges, William H., 2004. "The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 49-70, January.
    6. Carol A. Jones & Katherine A. Pease, 1997. "Restoration-Based Compensation Measures In Natural Resource Liability Statutes," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 111-122, October.
    7. Norton-Griffiths, Michael & Southey, Clive, 1995. "The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 125-139, February.
    8. Nicholas E. Flores & Jennifer Thacher, 2002. "Money, Who Needs It? Natural Resource Damage Assessment," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(2), pages 171-178, April.
    9. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    10. Unsworth, Robert E. & Bishop, Richard C., 1994. "Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 35-41, September.
    11. Riera, Pere, 2008. "Does the equivalency analysis of the European Environmental Liability Directive pass a social cost-benefit analysis test?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, pages 225-226.
    12. Zafonte, Matthew & Hampton, Steve, 2007. "Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 134-145, February.
    13. Roach, Brian & Wade, William W., 2006. "Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 421-433, June.
    14. Joseph Persky, 2001. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Classical Creed," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, pages 199-208.
    15. Boyd, James & Wainger, Lisa, 2003. "Measuring Ecosystem Service Benefits: The Use of Landscape Analysis to Evaluate Environmental Trades and Compensation," Discussion Papers dp-02-63, 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. repec:eee:ecolec:v:143:y:2018:i:c:p:74-89 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Equivalency Analysis (EA); Cost-Benefits Analysis (CBA); interim loss; equity; efficiency; social profitability;

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:hhs:slucer:2012_012. 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: (Mona Bonta Bergman). General contact details of provider: http://www.cere.se .

    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.