Advertisement

Standards and the regulation of environmental risk

  • Brent Hueth
  • Tigran Melkonyan
Original Article

Abstract

We study regulatory design for a pollution-generating firm who is better informed than the regulator regarding pollution mitigation possibilities, and who chooses an unobservable action when employing a particular mitigation plan. We distinguish among performance, process, and design standards, and study the relative merit of each type of regulatory instrument. Relative to previous work on standards design, we emphasize technology and process verification. An optimal performance standard is relatively strict when regulator and firm preferences are congruent, but the regulator may prefer no performance standard at all if verification costs are sufficiently high. A process standard unambiguously increases expected surplus (relative to no regulation) in some environments, and otherwise improves welfare only when it is unlikely to generate a “bad” technology choice by the firm. A design standard can improve welfare if the regulator is sufficiently well informed about the technological possibilities for pollution control, but only when the firm’s private benefits from technology choice are sufficiently small.

Keywords

Standards Environmental regulation Asymmetric information 

JEL Classifications

D62 Q53 L51 

References

  1. Aghion P., Tirole J. (1997) Formal and real authority in organizations. Journal of Political Economy 105(1): 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker R., Henderson V. (2000) April). Effects of air quality regulations on polluting industries. Journal of Political Economy 108(2): 379–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besanko D.A. (1987) Performance vs. design standards in the regulation of pollution. Journal of Public Economics 34(1): 19–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coglianese C., Lazer D. (2003) Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law and Society Review 37: 691–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coglianese C., Nash J., Olmstead T. (2003) Performance-based regulation: Prospects and limitations in health, safety, and environmental regulation. Administrative Law Review 55: 705–729Google Scholar
  6. Cropper M., Evans W., Berardi S., Ducla-Soares M., Portney P.R. (1992) February). The determinants of pesticide regulation: A statistical analysis of epa decision making. Journal of Political Economy 100(1): 175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Food and Drug Adminstration. (2005, July last accessed). Hazard analysis and critical control point overview. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/+~+comm/haccpov.htm..
  8. Hamilton, J. T. Viscusi, W. K. (1999). Calculating risk: The spatial and political dimensions of hazerdous-waste Policy. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R., & Sterner, T. (2004). Choosing environmental policy: Comparing instruments and outcomes in the United States and Europe, Chapter overview: Comparing instrument choices.Google Scholar
  10. Helfand G.E. (1991) Standards versus standards: The effects of different pollution restrictions. American Economic Review 81(3): 622–634Google Scholar
  11. Heyes A. (2000) Implementing environmental regulation: Enforcement and compliance. Journal of Regulatory Economics 17(2): 107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holmström B., Milgrom P. (1991) Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 7(0): 24–52Google Scholar
  13. Innes, R. (1998). Environmental standards and liability with limited assets and private information. In E. T. Loehman & D. M. Kilgour (Eds.), Designing institutions for environmental and resource management. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Jung C., Krutilla K., Boyd R. (1996) Incentives for advanced pollution abatement technology at the industry level: An evaluation of policy alternatives. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keohane N.O., Revesz R.L., Stavins R. (1998) The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 22: 313–367Google Scholar
  16. Kolstad, C. D., Ulen, T. S., Johnson, G. V. (1990, September). Ex post liability for harm vs. Ex ante safety regulation: Substitutes or complements? American Economic Review, 80(4), 888–901.Google Scholar
  17. Lichtenberg E., Zilberman D. (1988) Efficient regulation of environmental health risks. Quarterly Journal of Economics 103(1): 167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacDonald, J. M., & Crutchfield, S. (1997). Modeling the costs of food safety regulation. In J. A. Caswell & R. W. Cotterill (Eds.), Strategy and policy in the food system: Emerging Issues. Proceedings of the NE-165 Conference, June 20–21, 1996. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wopmarerp/9617.ht..
  19. Montero, J.-P. (2005). Pollution markets with imperfectly observed emissions. Rand Journal of Economics Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  20. Office of Technology Assessment. (1995, September). Environmental policy tools: A user’s guide. OTA-ENV 634, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Prendergast C. (2002) The tenuous trade-off between risk and incentives. Journal of Political Economy 110(5): 1071–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shavell S. (1984, Summer) . A model of the optimal use of liability and safety regulation. Rand Journal of Economics 15(2): 271–280Google Scholar
  23. Shavell S. (1986) The judgement proof problem. International Review of Law and Economics 6(1): 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smook G. (1992) Handbook for pulp and paper technlogists (2nd ed). Angus Wilde Publications, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  25. Stavins R.N. (1996) Correlated uncertainty and policy instrument choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 218–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Pulp and paper NESHAP: A plain english description. Technical report, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards.Google Scholar
  27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Profile of the pulp and paper industry. Technical report, office of compliance. Sector Notebook Series.Google Scholar
  28. Viscusi, W. K., Vernon, J. M., & Harrington, Jr. J. E. (2000). Economics of regulation and antitrust. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Weitzman, M. L. (1974, October). Prices vs. quantities. Review of Economic Studies, XLI, 477–489.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.University of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations