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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Georgy Egorov & Bård Harstad, 2017. "Private Politics and Public Regulation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(4), pages 1652-1682.
    2. Ambec, Stefan & De Donder, Philippe, 2022. "Environmental policy with green consumerism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Georgiou, Stavros & Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Vainio, Matti, 2018. "Benefit-Cost Analysis in EU Chemicals Legislation: Experiences from over 100 REACH Applications for Authorisation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 181-204, April.
    4. Dür, Andreas & De Bièvre, Dirk, 2007. "Inclusion without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 79-101, May.
    5. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2023. "The Political Economics of Green Transitions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(3), pages 1863-1906.
    6. Stephan Lewandowsky & Gilles E. Gignac & Samuel Vaughan, 2013. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 399-404, April.
    7. Mireille Chiroleu‐Assouline & Thomas P. Lyon, 2020. "Merchants of doubt: Corporate political action when NGO credibility is uncertain," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 439-461, April.
    8. Wouter Dessein, 2002. "Authority and Communication in Organizations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 811-838.
    9. Jessica Coria & Erik Kristiansson & Mikael Gustavsson, 2022. "Economic interests cloud hazard reductions in the European regulation of substances of very high concern," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Christoph Klika, 2015. "The Implementation of the REACH Authorisation Procedure on Chemical Substances of Concern: What Kind of Legitimacy?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 128-138.
    11. Cremer, Helmuth & De Donder, Philippe & Gahvari, Firouz, 2008. "Political competition within and between parties: An application to environmental policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 532-547, April.
    12. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2005. "Self-Confidence and Personal Motivation," International Economic Association Series, in: Bina Agarwal & Alessandro Vercelli (ed.), Psychology, Rationality and Economic Behaviour, chapter 2, pages 19-57, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1986. "Relying on the Information of Interested Parties," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 18-32, Spring.
    14. Vijay Krishna & John Morgan, 2001. "A Model of Expertise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 747-775.
    15. Adam W. Chalmers, 2020. "Unity and conflict: Explaining financial industry lobbying success in European Union public consultations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 391-408, July.
    16. Sourav Bhattacharya & Arijit Mukherjee, 2013. "Strategic information revelation when experts compete to influence," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(3), pages 522-544, September.
    17. Beyers, Jan & Arras, Sarah, 2020. "Who feeds information to regulators? Stakeholder diversity in European Union regulatory agency consultations," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 573-598, December.
    18. Oates, Wallace E. & Schwab, Robert M., 1988. "Economic competition among jurisdictions: efficiency enhancing or distortion inducing?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 333-354, April.
    19. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    20. Sourav Bhattacharya & Arijit Mukherjee, 2011. "Strategic Information Revelation when Experts Compete to Influence," Working Paper 453, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2013.
    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. Gregor Martin, 2015. "To Invite or Not to Invite a Lobby, That Is the Question," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 143-166, July.
    2. Winand Emons & Claude Fluet, 2019. "Strategic communication with reporting costs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 341-363, October.
    3. Emir Kamenica & Matthew Gentzkow, 2011. "Bayesian Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2590-2615, October.
    4. Martin Gregor, 2014. "Receiver's access fee for a single sender," Working Papers IES 2014/17, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised May 2014.
    5. Bhattacharya, Sourav & Goltsman, Maria & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2018. "On the optimality of diverse expert panels in persuasion games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 345-363.
    6. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    7. Arnold Polanski & Mark Quement, 2023. "The battle of opinion: dynamic information revelation by ideological senders," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(2), pages 463-483, June.
    8. Yingni Guo, 2021. "Information transmission and voting," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 835-868, October.
    9. Martin Gregor, 2014. "Access fees for competing lobbies," Working Papers IES 2014/22, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Jul 2014.
    10. Simon Board & Jay Lu, 2018. "Competitive Information Disclosure in Search Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(5), pages 1965-2010.
    11. Irene Valsecchi, 2013. "The expert problem: a survey," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 303-331, November.
    12. Wong, Tsz-Ning & Yang, Lily Ling, 2018. "When does monitoring hurt? Endogenous information acquisition in a game of persuasion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 186-189.
    13. Persson, Petra, 2018. "Attention manipulation and information overload," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 78-106, May.
    14. Shuo Liu & Dimitri Migrow, 2019. "Designing organizations in volatile markets," ECON - Working Papers 319, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Claude Fluet & Thomas Lanzi, 2021. "Cross-Examination," Working Papers of BETA 2021-40, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    16. Rantakari, Heikki, 2014. "A simple model of project selection with strategic communication and uncertain motives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 14-42.
    17. Au, Pak Hung & Kawai, Keiichi, 2020. "Competitive information disclosure by multiple senders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 56-78.
    18. Esra E. Bayindir & Mehmet Y. Gurdal & Ayca Ozdogan & Ismail Saglam, 2020. "Cheap Talk Games with Two-Senders and Different Modes of Communication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-22, April.
    19. Li, Zhuozheng & Rantakari, Heikki & Yang, Huanxing, 2016. "Competitive cheap talk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 65-89.
    20. Ivanov, Maxim, 2010. "Informational control and organizational design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 721-751, March.

    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.

    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 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.