IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/130037.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental Regulation Informed by Biased Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Ambec, Stefan
  • Coria, Jessica

Abstract

Public consultations are widely used in regulatory processes, allowing stakeholders to present their viewpoints despite their inherent biases. Some stakeholders, such as firms, are known to be pro-business, while others, such as environmental NGOs, are pro-environment. We develop a framework to analyze how a regulator should process information provided by biased stakeholders. We distinguish between stakeholders whose biases are high and known and those whose biases are small but unknown, such as national authorities. We show that the regulator should follow the advice that runs counter to a stakeholder’s typical bias, i.e., to regulate if firms so advise, and not to regulate if environmental organizations so advise. Without such advice, she should prioritize the comments provided by stakeholders with smaller but unknown bias. Next, we contrast our theoretical results with the regulation of chemicals in the European Union. In line with our theory, we find that support for regulation has a strong and significant impact on the decision to regulate when the support comes from firms but not when it comes from NGOs and environmental agencies. We also find that national authorities have a stronger influence than other stakeholders in the regulation decision, both by the number of comments and the relative support.

Suggested Citation

  • Ambec, Stefan & Coria, Jessica, 2024. "Environmental Regulation Informed by Biased Stakeholders," TSE Working Papers 24-1604, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
  • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:130037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2024/wp_tse_1604.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental policy; incomplete information; cheap talk; biased expertise; private politics; chemicals; REACH;
    All these keywords.

    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:tse:wpaper:130037. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.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.