Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 399–416 | Cite as

Choosing the right instrument

The role of public revenues for environmental policy
  • Ronnie Schöb
Original Paper


This paper analyses the optimal choice of second-best optimal environmental policies. Using a partial equilibrium model, the paper first reconfirms the well-known result that the existence of a double dividend (in its weak definition) favours environmental policy instruments which maximise tax revenues for a given improvement in environmental quality. Additional revenues can be used to reduce the distortion of existing taxes such as taxes on labour and capital income. Without uncertainty, environmental taxes and auctioned permits are equally appropriate. In the presence of uncertainty, however, the optimal choice of taxes or tradable permits depends on the relative magnitudes of the marginal environmental damage and the marginal benefit from consuming a polluting good. In the second part, the paper, therefore, analyses how the revenue capacity affects the optimal choice of environmental policy instruments in the presence of uncertainty. The paper shows that the first-best choice rule between price and quantity regulation (Weitzman, 1974) remains valid in a second-best world with distortionary taxation.

Key words

environmental taxes tradable permits excess burden tax revenues uncertainty secondbest policy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adar, Z. and J. M. Griffin (1976), ‘Uncertainty and the Choice of Pollution Control Instruments’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3, 178–188.Google Scholar
  2. Baumol, W. J. and W. E. Oates (1988), The Theory of Environmental Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  3. Bovenberg, A. L. and R. A. de Mooij (1994), ‘Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation’, American Economic Review 84, 1085–1089.Google Scholar
  4. Bovenberg, A. L. and F. van der Ploeg (1994), ‘Environmental Policy, Public Finance and the Labour Market in a Second-Best World,’ Journal of Public Economics 55, 349–390.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, R., K. Krutilla, and W. K. Viscusi (1995), ‘Energy Taxation as a Policy Instrument to Reduce CO2 Emissions: A Net Benefit Analysis,’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 1–24.Google Scholar
  6. Crandell, R. W. (1983), Controlling Industrial Pollution, The Brooking Institution, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Dales, J. H. (1968), Pollution, Property and Prices, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  8. Dewees, D. N. and W. A. Sims (1976), ‘The Symmetry of Effluent Charges and Subsidies for Pollution Control,’ Canadian Journal of Economics 9, 323–331.Google Scholar
  9. Fishelson, G. (1976), ‘Emission Control Policies under Uncertainty,’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3, 189–197.Google Scholar
  10. Goulder, L. H. (1995), ‘Environmental Taxation and the Double Dividend: A Reader's Guide,’ International Tax and Public Finance 2, 157–184.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, D. R. and W. S. Misiolek (1986), ‘Substituting Pollution Taxation for General Taxation: Some Implications for Efficiency in Pollution Taxation,’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13, 338–347.Google Scholar
  12. Montgomery, D. (1972), ‘Market in Licenses and Efficient Pollution Control Programs,’ Journal of Economic Theory 5, 395–418.Google Scholar
  13. Mumy, G. E. (1980), ‘Long-Run Efficiency and Property Rights Sharing for Pullution Control,’ Public Choice 35, 59–74.Google Scholar
  14. Newbery, D. (1990), ‘Acid Rain,’ Economic Policy 5, 295–346.Google Scholar
  15. Nichols, A. L. (1984), Targeting Economic Incentives for Environmental Protection, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London.Google Scholar
  16. Nordhaus, W. D. (1991), ‘To Slow or not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhous Effects,’ Economic Journal 101, 920–937.Google Scholar
  17. Pezzey, J. (1992), ‘The Symmetry between Controlling Pollution by Price and Controlling it by Quantity,’ Canadian Journal of Economics 25, 982–991.Google Scholar
  18. Roberts, M. J. and M. Spence (1976), ‘Effluent Charges and Licenses under Uncertainty,’ Journal of Public Economics 5, 193–208.Google Scholar
  19. Sandmo, A. (1975), ‘Optimal Taxation in the Presence of Externalities’, Swedish Journal of Economics 77, 86–98.Google Scholar
  20. Schöb, R. (1994), Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxation: Environmental View vs. Public Finance View, University of Essex, Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series No. 436, November.Google Scholar
  21. Spence, A. M. and M. L. Weitzman (1978), ‘Regulatory strategies for Pollution Control’, in A. F. Friedlaender, ed., Approaches to Controlling Air Pollution, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 199–219.Google Scholar
  22. Spulber, D. F. (1985), ‘Effluent Regulation and Long-Run Qptimality’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12, 103–116.Google Scholar
  23. Weitzman, M. L. (1974), ‘Prices vs. Quantities’, The Review of Economic Studies 61, 477–489.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronnie Schöb
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations