IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-01-53.html

Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Stavins, Robert

Abstract

This paper draws on American experience with four categories of market-based instruments for environmental protection: charge systems; tradeable permits; market friction reduction; and government subsidy reduction. The paper examines normative and positive lessons that can be learned from these experiences.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-01-53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Poulton, David W. & Kaplinsky, Eran S., 2022. "Unfinished business: Market-based instruments under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Jacobsen, Ben & Mallawaarachchi, Thilak, 2002. "Issues in the Implementation of Nonpoint Source Pollution Mitigation: A Case Study of Potential Expansion of the Sugar Industry in North Queensland," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 125112, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Daniel Cardona & Jenny De Freitas & Antoni Rubí-Barceló, 2021. "Environmental policy contests: command and control versus taxes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(3), pages 654-684, June.
    4. Evy Crals & Lode Vereeck, 2005. "Taxes, Tradable Rights and Transaction Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 199-223, September.
    5. Wiktor Adamowicz, 2007. "Reflections on Environmental Policy in Canada," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(1), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2003. "Hot Air as an Implicit Side Payment Arrangement: Could a Hot Air Provision have Saved the Kyoto-Agreement?," Working Papers 42/03, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    7. Shreekant Gupta, 2010. "Incentive Based Approaches for Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emmissions : Issues And Prospects for India," Working Papers id:2638, eSocialSciences.
    8. Daigneault, Adam & Greenhalgh, Suzie & Samarasinghe, Oshadhi, 2017. "Equitably slicing the pie: Water policy and allocation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 449-459.
    9. Sterner, Thomas & Hoglund Isaksson, Lena, 2006. "Refunded emission payments theory, distribution of costs, and Swedish experience of NOx abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 93-106, April.
    10. Mo, Jian-Lei & Agnolucci, Paolo & Jiang, Mao-Rong & Fan, Ying, 2016. "The impact of Chinese carbon emission trading scheme (ETS) on low carbon energy (LCE) investment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 271-283.
    11. Brita Bye & Marit E. Klemetsen, 2018. "The Impacts of Alternative Policy Instruments on Environmental Performance: A Firm Level Study of Temporary and Persistent Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 317-341, February.
    12. Gordon, Simon, 2003. "Economic Instruments For Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: Options For The Swan-Canning River System," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57873, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Claudia S. Gómez-López, 2009. "Energy consumption, income and CO2 emissions in Latin America," Department of Economics and Finance Working Papers EC200901, Universidad de Guanajuato, Department of Economics and Finance.
    14. Chen, Yihui & Jiang, Ping & Dong, Wenbo & Huang, Beijia, 2015. "Analysis on the carbon trading approach in promoting sustainable buildings in China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 130-137.
    15. Kalim Shah & George Philippidis & Hari Dulal & Gernot Brodnig, 2014. "Developing biofuels industry in small economies: Policy experiences and lessons from the caribbean basin initiative," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 229-253, February.
    16. Adel Shamaileh, 2016. "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Environment Policy in Jordan," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(2), pages 1-92, January.
    17. Brita Bye & Marit E. Klemetsen, 2014. "The impacts of alternative policy instruments on environmental performance. A firm level study of temporary and persistent effects," Discussion Papers 788, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    18. Saphores, Jean-Daniel M. & Nixon, Hilary, 2014. "How effective are current household recycling policies? Results from a national survey of U.S. households," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    20. Shreekant Gupta, 2000. "Incentive-Based Approaches for Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Issues and Prospects for India," Working papers 85, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    21. Martin, Paul V., 2018. "Managing the risks of ecosystem services markets," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 404-410.
    22. Stefan Weishaar, 2007. "CO 2 emission allowance allocation mechanisms, allocative efficiency and the environment: a static and dynamic perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 29-70, August.
    23. Wang, Qiang & Chen, Xi, 2015. "Energy policies for managing China’s carbon emission," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 470-479.
    24. Shaheen, Susan A. & Bejamin-Chung, Jade & Allen, Denise & Howe-Steiger, Linda, 2009. "Achieving California’s Land Use and Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets Under AB 32: An Exploration of Potential Policy Processes and Mechanisms," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt8bm4t7w5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-01-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.