IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/isu/genres/1836.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Long-Run Efficiency of Auctioned vs. Free Permits

Author

Listed:
  • Kling, Catherine L.
  • Zhao, Jinhua

Abstract

When marketable emission permits affect the entry and exit decisions of competitive firms, all permits should not be distributed free of charge. Depending on the nature of the pollutant, an optimal share of the permits should be auctioned with others freely distributed to ensure long-run efficiency. All of the permits should be auctioned for global pollutants, but for local pollutants, some of the permits should be free.

Suggested Citation

  • Kling, Catherine L. & Zhao, Jinhua, 2000. "On the Long-Run Efficiency of Auctioned vs. Free Permits," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1836, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:1836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis W. Carlton & Glenn C. Loury, 1980. "The Limitations of Pigouvian Taxes as a Long-Run Remedy for Externalities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 559-566.
    2. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    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. Wang, Kun & Fu, Xiaowen & Luo, Meifeng, 2015. "Modeling the impacts of alternative emission trading schemes on international shipping," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 35-49.
    2. Lambie, Neil Ross, 2010. "Understanding the effect of an emissions trading scheme on electricity generator investment and retirement behaviour: the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(2), June.
    3. Lambie, Neil Ross, 2009. "The role of real options analysis in the design of a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47626, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. John Pezzey, 2003. "Emission Taxes and Tradeable Permits A Comparison of Views on Long-Run Efficiency," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 329-342, October.
    5. Krysiak, Frank C., 2008. "Prices vs. quantities: The effects on technology choice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1275-1287, June.
    6. Shinkuma, Takayoshi & Sugeta, Hajime, 2016. "Tax versus emissions trading scheme in the long run," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 12-24.
    7. Sonia Schwartz, 2009. "Comment distribuer les quotas de pollution ?. Une revue de la littérature," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 119(4), pages 535-568.
    8. Florent Pratlong, 2005. "Does the distribution of emission permits matter for international competitiveness?," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v05011, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    9. Fridrik Baldursson & Jon Sturluson, 2011. "Fees and the Efficiency of Tradable Permit Systems: An Experimental Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 25-41, January.
    10. Anthony Heyes, 2009. "Is environmental regulation bad for competition? A survey," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-28, August.

    More about this item

    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:isu:genres:1836. 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: (Curtis Balmer). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deiasus.html .

    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.