IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v8y2008i6p548-568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysing preferences towards economic incentives in combating climate change: a comparative analysis of US states

Author

Listed:
  • CRISTINA E. CIOCIRLAN

Abstract

In contrast to the federal government, some US states have taken an aggressive approach to curbing climate change. They use a variety of policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gases. These instruments can be categorized into two broad categories: economic incentives and command-and-control regulation. While the use of economic incentives has, on average, increased, some states employ them more than others. This article compares the propensity of different US states to employ economic incentives in the area of climate change. For this purpose, it analyses and tests four models: (i) a needs/responsiveness model, (ii) an interest group influence model, (iii) an innovation-and-diffusion model, and (iv) a combined model. Interestingly, this article finds that economic incentives are pushed out of the political agenda when states are confronted with a more severe problem in terms of carbon emissions and dependence on conventional energy. This article also finds support for the traditional, antagonistic view of 'industry versus environmentalists': electric utility companies tend to oppose economic incentives, while environmentalists and renewable energy producers tend to support them.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina E. Ciocirlan, 2008. "Analysing preferences towards economic incentives in combating climate change: a comparative analysis of US states," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(6), pages 548-568, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:8:y:2008:i:6:p:548-568
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2007.0441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2007.0441
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3763/cpol.2007.0441?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. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    2. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Serena Y., 2020. "Institutional arrangements and airport solar PV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Yi, Hongtao, 2014. "Green businesses in a clean energy economy: Analyzing drivers of green business growth in U.S. states," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 922-929.
    3. Yi, Hongtao, 2015. "Clean-energy policies and electricity sector carbon emissions in the U.S. states," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 19-29.
    4. Bae, Hyunhoe & Yu, Sanguk, 2018. "Information and coercive regulation: The impact of fuel mix information disclosure on states’ adoption of renewable energy policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-159.
    5. Li, Hui & Yi, Hongtao, 2014. "Multilevel governance and deployment of solar PV panels in U.S. cities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 19-27.
    6. Swallow, Kimberly A. & Swallow, Brent M., 2015. "Explicitly integrating institutions into bioeconomic modeling:," IFPRI discussion papers 1420, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Cheng, Quan & Yi, Hongtao, 2017. "Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 683-691.

    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. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    2. Gilbert E. Metcalf & David Weisbach, 2012. "Linking Policies When Tastes Differ: Global Climate Policy in a Heterogeneous World," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 110-129.
    3. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Ossama Mikhail & J. Walter Milon & Richard Hofler, 2005. "Is Investment in Environmental Quality a Solution to Recessions? Studying the Welfare Effects of Green Animal Spirits," Others 0510010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Xu, Wenli & Xu, Kun & Lu, Hongyou, 2016. "Environmental Policy and China’s Macroeconomic Dynamics Under Uncertainty---Based on The NK Model with Distortionary Taxation," MPRA Paper 71314, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Scott Farrow, 2011. "Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit‐Cost Analysis Using Risk‐Based Preferences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 902-907, June.
    7. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & Xiral López Otero, 2014. "A Panorama on Energy Taxes and Green Tax Reforms," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 145-190, March.
    8. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    9. Stef Proost & Denise Van Regemorter, 2004. "Climate Change Policy in European Countries and its effects on industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 453-473, October.
    10. Don Fullerton, 2009. "Does Environmental Protection Hurt Low-Income Families?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(1), pages 45-49, April.
    11. Don Fullerton, 2009. "Does Environmental Protection Hurt Low-Income Families?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 10(01), pages 45-49, April.
    12. Baomin Dong & Jiong Gong & Xin Zhao, 2012. "FDI and environmental regulation: pollution haven or a race to the top?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 216-237, April.
    13. David Tobón Orozco & Carlos Andrés Vasco Correa, 2011. "Un modelo de equilibrio general con externalidades y capital natural," Libros del Grupo Microeconomía Aplicada, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, edition 1, number 01, January-J.
    14. Baris Ata & Deishin Lee & Mustafa H. Tongarlak, 2012. "Optimizing Organic Waste to Energy Operations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 231-244, April.
    15. Nijiraini, Georgina & Thiam, Djiby, 2015. "Estimating transaction costs associated with water policy implementation in South Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212585, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Robert D. Mohr & Shrawantee Saha, 2008. "Distribution of Environmental Costs and Benefits, Additional Distortions, and the Porter Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 689-700.
    17. Xin Deng & Lingzhi Zhang & Rong Xu & Miao Zeng & Qiang He & Dingde Xu & Yanbin Qi, 2022. "Do Cooperatives Affect Groundwater Protection? Evidence from Rural China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Don Fullerton, 2008. "Distributional Effects of Environmental and Energy Policy: An Introduction," NBER Working Papers 14241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Don Fullerton, 2024. "The Circular Economy," CESifo Working Paper Series 11109, CESifo.
    20. Mettepenningen, Evy & Beckmann, Volker & Eggers, Jorg, 2008. "Public transaction cost of agri-environmental schemes and its determinants - Analysing stakeholders’ involvement and perceptions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44321, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:8:y:2008:i:6:p:548-568. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.