2-Stage Enforcement and Regulatory Polarisation: a Simple Model with Application to the USEPA
We present a simple, positive model in which regulatory enforcement is a 2-stage process. In the first stage firms are subject to random inspection. The inspection yields a noisy signal of the firm's true performance. Only if the signal exceeds some critical or "trigger" value is the firm subject to the second stage of enforcement, the audit. Analysis of the 2-stage process reveals some surprising comparative static results. The key result, referred to as regulatory polarisation, is the divergence of response to a tightening of the trigger. Specifically, while non-serious violators improve their performance as a result of a tighter trigger, the performance of serious violators degrades: The good get better whilst the bad get worse. The impact on total system performance is ambiguous and depends upon the initial distribution of firm types. We also analyse the implications of improvements in the accuracy of the inspection technology in such a model, arriving at some unconventional results. Whilst the model is motivated by institutional analysis of the USEPA it is argued to be applicable in a variety of other enforcement contexts.
|Date of creation:||1997|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Pavillon J.A. De Sève, Québec, Québec, G1K 7P4|
Phone: (418) 656-5122
Fax: (418) 656-2707
Web page: http://www.ecn.ulaval.ca
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Harrington, Winston, 1988. "Enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 29-53, October.
- Barrett, James & Segerson, Kathleen, 1997. "Prevention and Treatment in Environmental Policy Design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 196-213, June.
- Kambhu, John, 1989. "Regulatory Standards, Noncompliance and Enforcement," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 103-114, June.
- Shaffer, Sherrill, 1990. "Regulatory Compliance with Nonlinear Penalties," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 99-103, March.
- Davis, Michael L, 1994. "The Value of Truth and the Optimal Standard of Proof in Legal Disputes," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 343-359, October.
- Bebchuk, Lucian Arye & Kaplow, Louis, 1992.
"Optimal Sanctions When Individuals Are Imperfectly Informed about the Probability of Apprehension,"
The Journal of Legal Studies,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(2), pages 365-370, June.
- Lucian Arye Bebchuk & Louis Kaplow, 1992. "Optimal Sanctions When Individuals are Imperfectly Informed About the Probability of Apprehension," NBER Working Papers 4079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Devon Garvie & Andrew Keeler, 1993.
"Incomplete Enforcement with Endogenous Regulatory Choice,"
873, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Garvie, Devon & Keeler, Andrew, 1994. "Incomplete enforcement with endogenous regulatory choice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 141-162, September.
- Badrinath, S G & Bolster, Paul J, 1996. "The Role of Market Forces in EPA Enforcement Activity," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 165-181, September.
- Gary S. Becker, 1974.
"Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,"
in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Magat, Wesley A & Viscusi, W Kip, 1990. "Effectiveness of the EPA's Regulatory Enforcement: The Case of Industrial Effluent Standards," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 331-360, October.
- John Kambhu, 1989. "Regulatory standards, noncompliance and enforcement," Research Paper 8902, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Anthony Heyes, 1994. "Environmental enforcement when ‘inspectability’ is endogenous: A model with overshooting properties," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(5), pages 479-494, October.
- Pitchford, Rohan, 1995. "How Liable Should a Lender Be? The Case of Judgment-Proof Firms and Environmental Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1171-1186, December.
- Heyes, Anthony G., 1996. "Cutting environmental penalties to protect the environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 251-265, May.
- Karpoff, Jonathan M & Lott, John R, Jr, 1993. "The Reputational Penalty Firms Bear from Committing Criminal Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 757-802, October.
- Boyd, James & Kunreuther, Howard, 1997. "Retroactive Liability or the Public Purse?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 79-90, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lvl:laeccr:9717. 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: (Manuel Paradis)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.