Abstract
AbstractWe investigate a novel way to encourage separation between firms, causing local pollution, and their victims (households): payments from households to distant polluting firms. These payments do not require monitoring of firms’ emissions or their abatement costs. In our model, households and firms can choose from two locations (A and B, with A larger than B). Households incur environmental damage from firms in the same location. Under laissez faire, payments from households in one location (say A) to firms in the other location (say B) will prompt firms to move from A to B and to stay there, thus reducing damage to households in A. The maximum that households are willing to pay temporarily is the amount that currently makes them indifferent between A and B. The payments make A less attractive to firms as well as to households. The unique positive-payment equilibrium implements the global welfare optimum where laissez faire does not. We examine from which starting points this payment equilibrium can be reached.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Economics and Econometrics
Reference57 articles.
1. Antoci A, Borghesi S, Galeotti M, Sodini M (2021) Living in an uncertain world: Environment substitution, local and global indeterminacy. J Econ Dyn Control 126:103929
2. Banzhaf S, Ma L, Timmins C (2019) Environmental justice: the economics of race, place, and pollution. J Econ Perspect 33:185–208
3. Baumol WJ (1972) On taxation and the control of externalities. Am Econ Rev 62:307–322
4. Bedell C (1996a) Feedlot price: $1.82/month. Santa Maria Times, 28 June 1996, pp. A-1, A-6
5. Bedell C (1996b) Residents asked for feedlot funding. Santa Maria Times, 4 September 1996, pp. A-1, A-6
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献