Command-and-Control Policy

Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

This chapter provides insights into relevant features of command-andcontrol policies in an environmental context. The first section refers to environmental standards, which replace the generally unknown efficient levels of certain environmental commodities. The necessity to choose appropriate standards contributes substantially towards environmental policy developing into a separate policy area, competing with economic policy, labor market policy and others for financial and public support. The US Clean Air Act (CAA) and the German Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG) will help to analyze the concept of ecological efficiency. Thereafter, framework conditions, mostly for stimulating consumers and motivating private business companies to engage in environmental activities, will be investigated. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) applied to environmental policy characterizes the orientation of this section. The incentive compatibility of commands and framework conditions will be addressed by means of the refillables quota issue. In addition, standards and framework conditions should be economically feasible or economically reasonable. This concept appears in a variety of legal papers, acts and ordinances related to environmental policy. What does it mean and what are its implications from an economic point of view?

Keywords

Environmental Policy Framework Condition Economic Feasibility Labor Market Policy Waste Paper 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boardman A et al (2010) Cost-benefit analysis, 4th edn. Pearson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Canada (2010) Bottle bill resource guide http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/canada/ontario.htm. Cited May 2011
  3. 3.
    Canada (2010) The Beer Store: responsible stewardship 2009–2010 http://www.thebeerstore.ca/sites/default/files/widget/right/Stewardship%20Report%202010_0.pdf. Cited August 2011
  4. 4.
    Canada (2010) Who pays what: an analysis of beverage container recovery and costs in Canada. CM Consulting, Peterborough, Ontario http://www.bcmb.ab.ca/pdf/Who_Pays_What_2010.pdf. Cited August 2011
  5. 5.
    Germany: Federal Environmental Agency (”Umweltbundesamt”) http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/luft-e/index.htm. Cited May 2011
  6. 6.
    Germany (1998) Ordinance on the avoidance and recovery of packaging wastes (Packaging Ordinance – Verpackungsverordnung), amended 1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Germany (2006) Act for Promoting Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management and Ensuring Environmentally Compatible Waste Disposal, amended 2006 http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/promoting.pdf. Cited May 2011
  8. 8.
    Germany (2009) Federal Immission Control Act (BImSchG), amended 2009 http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/bimschg_en_bf.pdf. Cited May 2011
  9. 9.
    Germany (2009) Ordinance on the avoidance and recovery of packaging wastes (Packaging Ordinance – Verpackungsverordnung), amended 2009 http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/verpackv_5aenderung_en_bf.pdf. Cited May 2011
  10. 10.
    Germany (2011) Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung mbH: GVM Blickpunkt, Juni 2011, http://www.gvmonline.de/pdf/infocus/2011-06_MoevE2009_de.pdf. Cited July 2011
  11. 11.
    Germany (2011) Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung mbH: GVM Blickpunkt, June 2011, http://www.gvmonline.de/pdf/infocus/2011-06_EWMW2009_en.pdf. Cited July 2011
  12. 12.
    Hellowell M, Pollock AM (2007) New development: The PFI: Scotland’s plan for expansion and its implications. Public Money & Management 27:351–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kreps, DM (1990) A course in microeconomic theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OECD (2005) Analytical framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of extended producer responsibility programmes. OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocument/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/epoc/wgwpr(2005)6/final. Cited May 2011
  15. 15.
    US (2004) Clean Air Act, amended 2004 http://epw.senate.gov/envlaws/cleanair.pdf. Cited May 2011
  16. 16.
    US (2008) Container Recycling Institute (2008) Wasting and recycling trends: conclusions from CRI’s 2008 beverage market data analysis http://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2008-BMDA-conclusions.pdf. Cited May 2011
  17. 17.
    US (2010) Container Recycling Institute http://www.container-recycling.org/facts/glass/decline.htm. Cited May 2011
  18. 18.
    Wiesmeth H (2008) Investment opportunities in waste management through the Private Finance Initiative. Investment Research and Analysis J 3:1–13Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiesmeth H, Häckl D (2011) How to successfully implement extended producer responsibility: considerations from an economic point of view.Waste Management&Research (accepted for publication)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations