IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-97-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Nature Limit Environmental Federalism?

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, V. Kerry
  • Mansfield, Carol
  • Schwabe, Kurt

Abstract

This research considers whether the principles developed to analyze the optimal jurisdiction for producing public goods can be applied in cases where regulations of private activities provide the primary means to deliver different amounts of public and quasi-public goods. The analysis evaluates how devolution affects the development of benefit cost analyses for regulations and the role of economic versus environmental factors in defining the extent of the regulatory market. Using a study of nutrient control for the Neuse River in North Carolina, the analysis develops area specific measures of the benefits and costs of regulations and illustrates how changes in the composition of the areas allowed to "count" for policy design can affect decisions about the levels of control judged to meet the net benefit test.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol & Schwabe, Kurt, 1997. "Does Nature Limit Environmental Federalism?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-30, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-97-30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-97-30.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hazilla, Michael & Kopp, Raymond J, 1990. "Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 853-873, August.
    2. Smith, V. Kerry & Espinosa, J. Andrès, 1996. "Environmental and trade policies: some methodological lessons," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 19-40, February.
    3. Oates, Wallace E & Portney, Paul R & McGartland, Albert M, 1989. "The Net Benefits of Incentive-Based Regulation: A Case Study of Environmental Standard Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1233-1242, December.
    4. Dale W. Jorgenson & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 1990. "Environmental Regulation and U.S. Economic Growth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(2), pages 314-340, Summer.
    5. repec:bla:kyklos:v:23:y:1970:i:4:p:775-91 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Don Fullerton & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2002. "Environmental Controls, Scarcity Rents, and Pre-existing Distortions," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 26, pages 504-522, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Henderson, J Vernon, 1996. "Effects of Air Quality Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 789-813, September.
    8. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    9. Krupnick, Alan J. & Oates, Wallace E. & Van De Verg, Eric, 1983. "On marketable air-pollution permits: The case for a system of pollution offsets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-247, September.
    10. Gold, Steven D., 1996. "Issues Raised By the New Federalism," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 49(2), pages 273-87, June.
    11. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    12. Charles L. Ballard & Don Fullerton, 1992. "Distortionary Taxes and the Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 117-131, Summer.
    13. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    14. Smith, V. Kerry & Liu, Jin Long & Palmquist, Raymond B., 1993. "Marine pollution and sport fishing quality : Using Poisson models as household production functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 111-116.
    15. McGartland, Albert M. & Oates, Wallace E., 1985. "Marketable permits for the prevention of environmental deterioration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 207-228, September.
    16. Wallace E. Oates, 1991. "Studies In Fiscal Federalism," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 342.
    17. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry & Dallas Burtraw, 1996. "Revenue-Raising vs. Other Approaches to Environmental Protection: The Critical Significance of Pre-Existing Tax Distortions," NBER Working Papers 5641, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gold, Steven D., 1996. "Issues Raised by the New Federalism," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 49(2), pages 273-287, June.
    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. Fletcher, Jerald, 1999. "Watershed Economics: Resource Valuation Issues," Western Region Archives 321705, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    2. Shyam Nath & Yeti Nisha Madhoo, 2021. "Environmental fiscal federalism and atmospheric pollution: A tale of two Indian cities," ASARC Working Papers 2021-01, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.
    3. Ring, Irene, 2000. "Intergovernmental fiscal relations and regional sustainability," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2000, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. James Wesley Burnett & Christopher Mothorpe, 2018. "An Economic Assessment of the Southern Atlantic Coastal Region’s Stormwater Management Practices," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 1-38, October.
    5. H. Peter Witzke & Guido Urfei, 2001. "Willingness To Pay for Environmental Protection in Germany: Coping With the Regional Dimension," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 207-214.
    6. Bruns, B., 2005. "Community-based principles for negotiating water rights: Some conjectures on assumptions and priorities," IWMI Books, Reports H038750, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Ring, Irene, 2002. "Ecological public functions and fiscal equalisation at the local level in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 415-427, September.

    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. Pizer, William A. & Kopp, Raymond, 2005. "Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1307-1351, Elsevier.
    2. Smith, V. Kerry, 1996. "Environmental costing: Experience and prospects," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 333-345, December.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    4. Jay S. Coggins & Andrew L. Goodkind & Jason Nguyen & Zhiyu Wang, 2019. "Price Effects, Inefficient Environmental Policy, and Windfall Profits," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 637-656, March.
    5. Bovenberg, A. Lans & Goulder, Lawrence H., 2002. "Environmental taxation and regulation," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1471-1545, Elsevier.
    6. Curtis Carlson & Dallas Burtraw & Maureen Cropper & Karen L. Palmer, 2000. "Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What Are the Gains from Trade?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1292-1326, December.
    7. H. Allen Klaiber & V. Kerry Smith, 2013. "Developing general equilibrium benefit analyses for social programs: an introduction and example," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 6, pages 194-246, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Tom Tietenberg, 1995. "Tradeable permits for pollution control when emission location matters: What have we learned?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 95-113, March.
    9. Morgenstern, Richard D. & Pizer, William A. & Shih, Jhih-Shyang, 2002. "Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 412-436, May.
    10. Milan Jílek, 2015. "Factors of Tax Decentralization in OECD-Europe Countries," European Financial and Accounting Journal, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2015(2), pages 33-49.
    11. Linda Lobao & David Kraybill, 2009. "Poverty and Local Governments: Economic Development and Community Service Provision in an Era of Decentralization," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 418-451, September.
    12. Holger Sieg & V. Kerry Smith & H. Spencer Banzhaf & Randy Walsh, 2000. "Estimating the General Equilibrium Benefits of Large Policy Changes: The Clean Air Act Revisited," NBER Working Papers 7744, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    14. Chao-Ning Liao, 2009. "Technology adoption decisions under a mixed regulatory system of tradable permits and air pollution fees for the control of Total Suspended Particulates in Taiwan," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 135-153, April.
    15. Liao, Chao-Ning, 2007. "Modelling a mixed system of air pollution fee and tradable permits for controlling nitrogen oxide: a case study of Taiwan," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1-16.
    16. Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge & McNab, Robert M., 2003. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 1597-1616, September.
    17. Ian W.H. Parry, 2005. "Fiscal Interactions and the Costs of Controlling Pollution from Electricity," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 849-869, Winter.
    18. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    19. Winston Harrington & Richard D. Morgenstern & Peter Nelson, 2000. "On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 297-322.
    20. Fischer, Carolyn, 2011. "Market power and output-based refunding of environmental policy revenues," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 212-230, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-97-30. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.