Skip to main content
Log in

An alternative role for economic instruments: Sustainable finance for environmental management

  • Forum
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Economic instruments, such as effluent fees and tradable discharge permits (TDP), have often been suggested by economists as efficient or cost-effective means to control pollution. In recent years such instruments have received increasing attention due to their growing political acceptability. Still, their use in practice has been tentative.

The interest in possible application of such instruments has led to a set of studies regarding their practical potential. These studies indicate that economic instruments require substantial government involvement, entailing high administration cost; require restrictions so as to prevent significant deterioration in receptor areas; and have ambivalent effects on innovation adoption. Consequently, the efficiency gains from such instruments may be smaller than potential gains identified in earlier studies. In addition, the distributional impacts of such instruments and their possible adverse effect on market contestability reduce their attractiveness in some cases. These findings raise the question: what is the desired role of economic instruments in addressing environmental concerns?

In recent years the demand for environmental services has increased dramatically. Current legislation and studies indicate that desired environmental expenditures are likely to increase. At the same time environmental programs face increasing competition from other programs for a declining pool of general revenues. One outcome of these processes has been the search for alternative sources of funds for environmental programs. Furthermore, as the competition for general revenue funds increases, the allocation of such funds for environmental programs becomes less predictable. This may endanger many long-term environmental programs that require stable funding.

This article suggests that economic instruments may prove one source of dedicated funds for many environmental goals. Consequently, studies of environmental-program financing as well as studies of economic instruments may well explore the possible role of economic instruments as financing tools. Some examples of the potential of such tools for estuary cleanup programs are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Apogee Research. 1989. The cost of environmental protection: EPA, the states, and local governments. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Comptroller, Resource Management Division.

  • Baumol, W. J., and W. E. Oates. 1988. The theory of environmental policy, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, J. J. 1986. Economic instruments for pollution control: Recent experience in the United States. Report to OECD, Paris.

  • Buchanan, J., and G. Tullock. 1975. Polluters' profits and political response: Direct controls versus taxes,American Economic Review 65:139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dales, J. H. 1968. Pollution, property and prices. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feitelson, E. 1988. An institution-sensitive approach to the use of economic instruments for nonpoint source water pollution control,in V. Novotny (ed.), Nonpoint pollution: 1988—policy, economy, management and appropriate technology. American Water Resource Association, Bethesda, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. 1984. Market power and transferable property rights.Quarterly Journal of Economics 99:753–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. 1989. Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: How the patient followed the doctor's orders.Journal of Economic Perspectives 3:95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., and R. Noll. 1983. Barriers to implementing tradable air pollution permits: Problems of regulatory interaction.Yale Journal of Regulation 1:63–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., S. Hallett, and I. Moffatt. 1990. Why is more notice not taken of economists' prescriptions for the control of pollution?Environment and Planning A 22:1421–1439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, S. 1981. What price incentives?, Auburn House, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneese, A. V., and C. L. Schultze. 1975. Pollution, prices and public policy. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick, A., W. Oates, and E. Van de Verg. 1983. On the design of a market for air pollution permits: The case for a system of pollution offsets.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 10:233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, D., and R. Miller. 1986. Improving environmental information: New York's transition to environmental fees.Public Administration Review 46:75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, A. S. 1989. Are economic incentives appropriate for controlling toxic water pollutants? Proceedings, Fifth Annual Conference on the Economics of the Chesapeake Bay Management, Annapolis, Maryland.

  • Malueg, D. A. 1989. Emission credit trading and the incentive to adopt new pollution abatement technology.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 16:52–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misiolek, W. S., and H. W. Elder. 1989. Exclusionary manipulation of markets for pollution rights.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 16:156–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. L., et al. 1989. Using incentives for environmental protection: An overview. 89-360 ENR, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  • Oates, W. E. 1988. Taxing pollution: An idea whose time has come?Resources (Spring):5–7.

  • Pezzey, J. 1989. Economic analysis of sustainable growth. The World Bank, Environmental Department, Working paper 15, Washington, DC.

  • Rubin, K. I., and M. Alderson. 1988. Financing marine and estuarine programs: A guide to resources. EPA Office of Water 503/8-88/001.

  • Stavins, R. N. 1989. Harnessing market forces to protect the environment.Environment 31(1):5–7, 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, N. 1988. Legal considerations of development impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association 54:29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toman, M., and P. Crosson. 1991. Economics and ‘sustainability’: Balancing tradeoffs and imperatives. Discussion paper ENR-91-05, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

  • Walker, M., and D. Storey. 1977. The standards and prices approach to pollution control: Problems of iterations.Scandinavian Journal of Economics 79:99–109.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

An earlier version of this paper was presented at an international, interdisciplinary conference on “The Ecological Economics of Sustainability,” held at the World Bank, Washington, DC, May 21–23 1990. The work on which this article is based was conducted while the author was a senior economist at Apogee Research Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Feitelson, E. An alternative role for economic instruments: Sustainable finance for environmental management. Environmental Management 16, 299–307 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400068

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400068

Key words

Navigation