IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsg/lsgwps/wp29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New rules, new politics, same actors � explaining policy change in the EU ETS

Author

Listed:
  • Andr�s J. Drew

Abstract

The allocation rules for phase one EU ETS emissions permits demonstrates that energy generators were lobbying winners because they successfully blocked differential treatment (rules) from energy intensive industries, who cannot pass-on real or nominal costs of permits to consumers. As a result, these generators benefited from windfall profits. In phase three, the reverse is true; energy intensive industries successfully established differential rules. These rules will provide energy intensive industries with free allocations while most generators will be subject to 100 per cent auctioning, thus removing the windfall profit mechanism for generators. Literature applying public choice theory to this case study predicted free permit allocations but not windfall profits for generators nor the change in allocation rules in phase three. This paper presents the argument that a shift in Wilson�s Typology from client to interest group politics best explains these changes and provides a good framework for other jurisdictions considering emissions trading reforms. This dynamism in Wilson�s Typology is demonstrated by comparing the positions of industry associations representing energy generators and energy intensive industries with the two directives before and after consultations, which facilitates the identification of lobbying winners and losers. The EU ETS case study is fertile ground for testing regulatory theories that explain shifts away from clientelist policies with high levels of rent-seeking and towards more optimal policy equilibriums. This paper provides both a theoretical framework and empirical evidence for how emissions trading policy can be improved, despite rent-seeking, once it clears the legislative hurdle.

Suggested Citation

  • Andr�s J. Drew, 2010. "New rules, new politics, same actors � explaining policy change in the EU ETS," GRI Working Papers 29, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    • Handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WP29-policy-change-EU-ETS.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaditya Mattoo & Arvind Subramanian & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe & Jianwu He, 2009. "Reconciling Climate Change and Trade Policy," Working Papers 189, Center for Global Development.
    2. Pezzey, John C.V. & Mazouz, Salim & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "The logic of collective action and Australia’s climate policy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(2), pages 1-18.
    3. Tullock, Gordon, 1982. "Welfare and the law," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 151-163, December.
    4. Heinrich Tschochohei & Jan Zöckler, 2008. "Business and emissions trading from a public choice perspective – waiting for a new paradigm to emerge," Springer Books, in: Ralf Antes & Bernd Hansjürgens & Peter Letmathe (ed.), Emissions Trading, pages 21-35, Springer.
    5. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    6. Dieter Helm, 2006. "Regulatory Reform, Capture, and the Regulatory Burden," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 169-185, Summer.
    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. Gonçalves, Jorge & Costa, Manuel Luís, 2022. "The political influence of ecological economics in the European Union applied to the cap-and-trade policy11This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commerc," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    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. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    2. John Whalley, 2011. "What Role for Trade in a Post‐2012 Global Climate Policy Regime," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(11), pages 1844-1862, November.
    3. Aichele, Rahel & Felbermayr, Gabriel, 2012. "Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 336-354.
    4. Christoph Böhringer & Knut Einar Rosendahl & Halvor Storrøsten, 2021. "Smart hedging against carbon leakage [An overview of the GTAP 9 data base]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 36(107), pages 439-484.
    5. Li, Aijun & Lin, Boqiang, 2013. "Comparing climate policies to reduce carbon emissions in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 667-674.
    6. Olga Kiuila & Krzysztof Wójtowicz & Tomasz Żylicz & Leszek Kasek, 2016. "Economic and environmental effects of unilateral climate actions," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 263-278, February.
    7. Christoph Böhringer & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2017. "Paris after Trump: An Inconvenient Insight," CESifo Working Paper Series 6531, CESifo.
    8. Antimiani, Alessandro & Costantini, Valeria & Martini, Chiara & Salvatici, Luca & Tommasino, Maria Cristina, 2011. "Cooperative and non-cooperative solutions to carbon leakage," Conference papers 332096, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Sato, Misato, 2014. "Product level embodied carbon flows in bilateral trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 106-117.
    10. Michael Jakob & Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2014. "Consumption- Versus Production-Based Emission Policies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 297-318, October.
    11. Rahel Aichele, 2013. "Trade, Climate Policy and Carbon Leakage - Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 49.
    12. Böhringer, Christoph & Rosendahl, Knut Einar & Storrøsten, Halvor Briseid, 2017. "Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 35-46.
    13. Boehringer Christoph & Fischer Carolyn & Rosendahl Knut Einar, 2010. "The Global Effects of Subglobal Climate Policies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-35, December.
    14. Winchester Niven & Paltsev Sergey & Reilly John M, 2011. "Will Border Carbon Adjustments Work?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-29, January.
    15. Li, Aijun & Zhang, Aizhen, 2012. "Will carbon motivated border tax adjustments function as a threat?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 81-90.
    16. Peter Holmes & Tom Reilly & Jim Rollo, 2011. "Border carbon adjustments and the potential for protectionism," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 883-900, March.
    17. Rahel Aichele & Gabriel Felbermayr, 2013. "Estimating the Effects of Kyoto on Bilateral Trade Flows Using Matching Econometrics," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 303-330, March.
    18. Olga Kiuila, 2013. "Regional economic effects of differentiated climate action," ERSA conference papers ersa13p334, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Michael O. Moore, 2011. "Implementing Carbon Tariffs: A Fool’s Errand?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(10), pages 1679-1702, October.
    20. Christoph Böhringer & Knut Einar Rosendahl & Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2015. "Mitigating carbon leakage: Combining output-based rebating with a consumption tax," ZenTra Working Papers in Transnational Studies 54 / 2015, ZenTra - Center for Transnational Studies.

    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:lsg:lsgwps:wp29. 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: The GRI Administration (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/grlseuk.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.