The Market-based Lead Phasedown
The U.S. lead phasedown was effective in meeting its environmental objectives, and did so more quickly with the allowance of permit banking. The marketable lead permit system was highly costeffective, saving hundreds of millions of dollars relative to comparable policies not allowing trading or banking. Estimates suggest that transaction costs brought about only a modest reduction in program efficiency. The market-based nature of the program also provided incentives for more efficient adoption of new lead-removing technology, relative to a uniform standard. Distributionally, it is likely that the program was actually more responsive to the cost concerns of small refiners than a similar uniform standard would have been. The flexibility of the program likely increased the amount of violations, however, and added an unexpected monitoring and enforcement burden. On the other hand, one of the efficiency advantages of the incentive-based program is that it provided opportunities for unanticipated means of cost-effective compliance.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Suzi Kerr & Richard G. Newell, 2003.
"Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 317-343, 09.
- Kerr, Suzi & Newell, Richard, 2001. "Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the U.S. Lead Phasedown," Discussion Papers dp-01-14, Resources For the Future.
- Malueg, David A., 1989. "Emission credit trading and the incentive to adopt new pollution abatement technology," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 52-57, January.
- Helfand, Gloria E, 1991. "Standards versus Standards: The Effects of Different Pollution Restrictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 622-34, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-03-37. 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: (Webmaster)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.