Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 3–4, pp 587–602 | Cite as

Disclosure Strategies for Pollution Control

  • Tom Tietenberg


Disclosure strategies, which involve public and/or private attempts to increase the availability of information on pollution, form the basis for what some have called the third wave in pollution control policy (after legal regulation – the first wave – and market-based instruments – the second wave). While these strategies have become common in natural resource settings (forest certification and organic farming, for example), they are less familiar in a pollution control context. Yet the number of applications in that context is now growing in both OECD and developing countries. This survey will review what we know and don’t know about the use of disclosure strategies to control pollution and conclude with the author's sense of where further research would be particularly helpful.

information disclosure pollution control regulatory reform 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alanis-Ortega, Gustavo (1995), ‘Private Enforcement of Environmental Regulations: El Tamarindo in Jalisco, México: A Case Study’, a draft report to the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC (September).Google Scholar
  2. Afsah, S., B. LaPlante, et al. (1996), Controlling Industrial Pollution: A New Paradigm. Washington, DC: The World Bank Policy Research Department.Google Scholar
  3. Arora, S. and T. N. Cason (1996), ‘Why Do Firms Volunteer to Exceed Environmental Regulations? Understanding Participation in EPA's 33/50 Program’, Land Economics 72(4): 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badrinath, S. G. and P. J. Bolster (1996), ‘The Role of Market Forces in EPA Enforcement Activity’, Journal of Regulatory Economics 10(2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coase, R. (1960), ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, The Journal of Law and Economics 3(October): 1–44.Google Scholar
  6. Dasgupta, S. and D. Wheeler (1996), Citizen Complaints as Environmental Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, J. K., G. H. McClelland, W. D. Schultze, P. A. Locke, S. R. Elliot, G. W. Russell, A. Moyad (1990), An Evaluation of Strategies for Promoting Effective Radon Mitigation. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, A., G. H. McClelland, et al. (1991), ‘Communicating the Risk from Radon’, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 41(11): 1440–1445.Google Scholar
  9. Hahn, R. W. (1989), ‘Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: How the Patient Followed the Doctor's Orders’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 3(2): 95–114.Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton, J. T. (1995), ‘Pollution as News: Media and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxics Release Data’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1): 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy, P. W., B. LaPlante, et al. (1994), ‘Pollution Policy: The Role for Publicly Provided Information’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(1): 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khanna, M., W. R. H. Quimio, et al. (1997), Toxics Release Information: A Policy Tool for Environmental Protection. Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  13. Konar, S. and M. A. Cohen (1997), ‘Information as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(1): 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamarre, L. (1997), ‘Utility Customers Go for the Green’, EPRI Journal 22(2): 6–15.Google Scholar
  15. LaPlante, B. and P. Lanoie (1994), ‘Market Response to Environmental Incidents in Canada’, Southern Economic Journal 60: 657–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, T. (1996), ‘Protecting the Environment When Costs and Benefits are Privately Known’, Rand Journal of Economics 27(4): 819–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moscovitz, D. (1993), ‘Green Pricing: Why Not Customer Choice?’ The Electricity Journal 6(8): 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muoghalu, M. I., D. Robison, et al. (1990), ‘Hazardous Waste Lawsuits, Stockholder Returns and Deterrence’, Southern Economic Journal 57: 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Naysnerski, W. and T. Tietenberg (1992), ‘Private Enforcement’, in T. H. Tietenberg, ed., Innovation in Environmental Policy, pp. 109–136. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Naysnerski, W. and T. Tietenberg (1992), ‘Private Enforcement of Environmental Law’, Land Economics 68(1): 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (1989), Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  22. OECD (1994), Applying Economic Instruments to Environmental Policies in OECD and Dynamic Non-Member Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  23. OECD (1995). Environmental Taxes in OECD Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  24. Sand, P. H. (1991), ‘International Cooperation: The Environmental Experience’, in J. T. Mathews, ed., Preserving the Global Environment: The Challenge of Shared Leadership, pp. 236–279. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  25. Segerson, K. and T. Tietenberg (1992), ‘The Structure of Penalties in Environmental Enforcement: An Economic Analysis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23(2): 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinclair-Desgagné, B. and H. L. Gabel (1997), ‘Environmental Auditing in Management Systems in Public Policy’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(3): 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tietenberg, T. (1995), ‘Design Lessons from Existing Air Pollution Control Systems: The United States’, in S. Hanna and M. Munasinghe, eds., Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context: Case Studies and Design Applications. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  28. Tietenberg, T. (1996), Private Enforcement of Environmental Regulations in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Effective Instrument for Environmental Management?. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  29. Tietenberg, T. H. (1985), Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  30. Tietenberg, T. H. (1990), ‘Using Economic Incentives to Maintain Our Environment’, Challenge 33(2): 42–46.Google Scholar
  31. Tietenberg, T. H. (1992), Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York: HaperCollins Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Tietenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsColby CollegeWatervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations