IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v54y2015icp36-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who should set the total allowable catch? Social preferences and legitimacy in fisheries management institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Parés, Claudio
  • Dresdner, Jorge
  • Salgado, Hugo

Abstract

This article presents a decision-making model based on situations that are typically encountered in fisheries management when setting the total allowable quota. The model allows assessing the differences in outcomes when different management institutions make the decision under uncertain conditions. Social preferences are considered to measure the social expected costs raised by different institutions. Moreover, stakeholder participation and the notion of “legitimacy cost” are taken into account, the latter being defined as the cost of actions that stakeholders may take when they do not agree with decisions made by the management authority. Within this context, economic policy choices are discussed in terms of what type of institutions will generate a higher expected welfare depending on social preferences and legitimacy costs in specific contexts. Finally, this article also discusses what aspects should be considered when designing stakeholder and scientific boards in the TAC setting process.

Suggested Citation

  • Parés, Claudio & Dresdner, Jorge & Salgado, Hugo, 2015. "Who should set the total allowable catch? Social preferences and legitimacy in fisheries management institutions," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 36-43.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:54:y:2015:i:c:p:36-43
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14003480
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.011?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jentoft, Svein & McCay, Bonnie, 1995. "User participation in fisheries management: lessons drawn from international experiences," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 227-246, May.
    2. Dell'Apa, Andrea & Schiavinato, Lisa & Rulifson, Roger A., 2012. "The Magnuson–Stevens act (1976) and its reauthorizations: Failure or success for the implementation of fishery sustainability and management in the US?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 673-680.
    3. Grafton, R. Quentin & Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Che, Nhu, 2010. "Maximum economic yield," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 1-8.
    4. Mikalsen, Knut H. & Jentoft, Svein, 2008. "Participatory practices in fisheries across Europe: Making stakeholders more responsible," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 169-177, March.
    5. Da Rocha, José-María & Cerviño, Santiago & Villasante, Sebastian, 2012. "The Common Fisheries Policy: An enforcement problem," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1309-1314.
    6. Jentoft, Svein & Chuenpagdee, Ratana, 2009. "Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 553-560, July.
    7. Carlos Chavez & Hugo Salgado, 2005. "Individual Transferable Quota Markets under Illegal Fishing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(3), pages 303-324, July.
    8. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 53-89, January.
    9. Sen, Amartya K, 1979. "Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What's Wrong with Welfare Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 89(355), pages 537-558, September.
    10. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision‐making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    11. Hao Li & Sherwin Rosen & Wing Suen, 2001. "Conflicts and Common Interests in Committees," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1478-1497, December.
    12. Jon G. Sutinen & Peder Andersen, 1985. "The Economics of Fisheries Law Enforcement," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(4), pages 387-397.
    13. Parzival Copes, 1986. "A Critical Review of the Individual Quota as a Device in Fisheries Management," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 278-291.
    14. Raakjær Nielsen, Jesper, 2003. "An analytical framework for studying: compliance and legitimacy in fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 425-432, September.
    15. Hilborn, Ray, 2010. "Pretty Good Yield and exploited fishes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 193-196, January.
    16. Chávez, Carlos & González, Nuria & Salgado, Hugo, 2008. "ITQs under illegal fishing: An application to the red shrimp fishery in Chile," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 570-579, July.
    17. Arnason, Ragnar & Hannesson, Rögnvaldur & Schrank, William E., 2000. "Costs of fisheries management: the cases of Iceland, Norway and Newfoundland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 233-243, May.
    18. Hao Li & Wing Suen, 2004. "Delegating Decisions to Experts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 311-335, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hugo Salgado & Carlos Chávez, 2016. "Using Taxes to Deter Illegal Fishing in ITQ Systems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(4), pages 709-724, August.
    2. Nøstbakken, Linda, 2008. "Fisheries law enforcement--A survey of the economic literature," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 293-300, May.
    3. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2004. "On the Measurement of Human Well-being: Fuzzy Set Theory and Sen's Capability Approach," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-16, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    4. Rögnvaldur Hannesson, 2011. "When is fish quota enforcement worth while? A study of the Northeast Arctic cod," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 139-160, July.
    5. Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & Hansen, Christian P., 2012. "Why some forest rules are obeyed and others violated by farmers in Ghana: Instrumental and normative perspective of forest law compliance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 46-54.
    6. Damiano, Ettore & Li, Hao & Suen, Wing, 2021. "Optimal delay in committees," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 449-475.
    7. Jensen, Frank & Nøstbakken, Linda, 2016. "A corporate-crime perspective on fisheries: liability rules and non-compliance," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 371-392, June.
    8. Arnason, Ragnar, 2009. "Fisheries management and operations research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(3), pages 741-751, March.
    9. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    10. Wehner, Nicholas & Mackay, Mary & Jennings, Sarah & van Putten, E.I. & Sibly, Hugh & Yamazaki, Satoshi, 2018. "When push comes to shove in recreational fishing compliance, think ‘nudge’," MarXiv 2fyuc, Center for Open Science.
    11. Jabłoński Łukasz, 2019. "Inequality in Economics: The Concept, Perception, Types, and Driving Forces," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 27(1), pages 17-43, March.
    12. Robin Boadway & Motohiro Sato, 2008. "Bureaucratic Advice and Political Governance," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(4), pages 503-527, August.
    13. Urs Steiner Brandt & Niels Vestergaard, 2006. "Illegal Landings: An Aggregate Catch Self-Reporting Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 974-985.
    14. Alvear, Santiago A. Bermeo, 2006. "Modelling an ITQ Scheme in the Galapagos Marine Reserve Spiny Lobster Fishery," 2006 Conference, August 24-25, 2006, Nelson, New Zealand 31973, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Salgado, Hugo & Chávez, Carlos A. & Miller, Montserrat & Stranlund, John K., 2015. "ITQ markets with administrative costs: An application to the industrial common sardine and anchovy fishery in Chile," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 178-185.
    16. Tracey Mangin & Christopher Costello & James Anderson & Ragnar Arnason & Matthew Elliott & Steve D Gaines & Ray Hilborn & Emily Peterson & Rashid Sumaila, 2018. "Are fishery management upgrades worth the cost?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Manouchehrabadi, Behrang & Letizia, Paolo & Hendrikse, George, 2021. "Governance of collective entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 370-389.
    18. Eivind Stensholt, 2010. "Voces populi and the art of listening," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 291-317, July.
    19. Poggi, Ambra, 2010. "Job satisfaction, working conditions and aspirations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 936-949, December.
    20. Lucy Amigo-Dobaño & María Dolores Garza-Gil & Manuel M. Varela-Lafuente, 2020. "Analyzing the Attitudes of Spanish Firms towards Brexit’s Effects on the Management of European Fisheries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-17, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    TAC setting; Decision processes; Legitimacy costs; Preferences misalignment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    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:eee:marpol:v:54:y:2015:i:c:p:36-43. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    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.