IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v7y1988i3p500-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison Of The Effectiveness Of Incentives And Directives: The Case Of Dutch Water Quality Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Hans Th. A. Bressers

Abstract

The use of effluent charges as an instrument o f regulatory policy has been the object of much dispute. The controversy between advocates and opponents of replacing directives by incentive strategies in various fields of public intervention has always been rather heated, though carried on more in terms of theory than of empirical evidence drawn from experience with policy instruments in actual operation. Much like permit trading in the United States, regulatory effluent charges in The Netherlands more or less “sneaked in through the back door.” The Dutch system o f water quality charges had originally been designed to fulfill solely a revenue‐raising function. The unique features of The Netherlands system make it an interesting example of the use of charges. The Dutch system of effluent charges has been in operation since 1970 and, in terms of the level of the charges, is more than twice as large as the more recent German program. Furthermore its use as a regulatory instrument has been “accidental.” It did not replace the official intervention strategy of direct regulation. Given this situation, the Dutch case provides a unique opportunity to examine the effects of these two approaches as they were applied to the same case. Three statistical analyses of the impacts of the policy instrument used, supplemented by two expert assessments of these impacts, show the Dutch effluent charges have had a very remarkable effect on industrial polluters. In Holland, t h e water quality policy i s regarded as one of t h e few examples o f successful governmental intervention. The final section presents some general thoughts on relevance of the Dutch experience with effluent charges for other countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Hans Th. A. Bressers, 1988. "A Comparison Of The Effectiveness Of Incentives And Directives: The Case Of Dutch Water Quality Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(3), pages 500-518, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:7:y:1988:i:3:p:500-518
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00850.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00850.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00850.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. A.G. Conway, 1991. "Fonction des instruments économiques pour la réconciliation des politiques agricoles et environnementales suivant le principe pollueur-payeur," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 205(1), pages 44-52.
    2. Boyd, James, 2003. "Water Pollution Taxes: A Good Idea Doomed to Failure?," Discussion Papers 10611, Resources for the Future.
    3. René Kemp, 1998. "The Diffusion of Biological Waste-Water Treatment Plants in the Dutch Food and Beverage Industry," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 113-136, July.
    4. Mikael Andersen, 1999. "Governance by green taxes: implementing clean water policies in Europe 1970–1990," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(1), pages 39-63, March.

    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:bla:revpol:v:7:y:1988:i:3:p:500-518. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.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.