IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lnd/wpaper/200836.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Direct vs Indirect Payments for Environmental Services: The Role of Relaxing Market Constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Groom

    () (Department of Economics, School of Oriental and African Studies)

  • Charles Palmer

    () (Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich)

Abstract

Ferraro and Simpson (2002) argue that when markets are competitive, direct payments for environmental services are more cost effective in achieving environmental goals than indirect payments, say, for capital. However, when eco-entrepreneurs face non-price rationing in input or output markets, as is typical for e.g. credit in developing countries for, we show that interventions which relax constraints can be more cost-effective than direct payments. One corollary of this is that such indirect payments can be preferred to direct payments by interveners (e.g. NGOs) and eco-entrepreneurs alike. Both of these outcomes are more likely when constraints are severe.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Groom & Charles Palmer, 2008. "Direct vs Indirect Payments for Environmental Services: The Role of Relaxing Market Constraints," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 36.2008, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2008.
  • Handle: RePEc:lnd:wpaper:200836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/RePEc/pdf/200836.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammed, Essam, 2011. "Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?," MPRA Paper 43648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bush, Glenn & Hanley, Nicholas & Rondeau, Daniel, 2011. "Comparing opportunity cost measures of forest conservation in Uganda; implications for assessing the distributional impacts of forest management approac hes," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-12, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.

    More about this item

    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:lnd:wpaper:200836. 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: (Unai Pascual). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dlcamuk.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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.