当大堤决堤:多污染物市场能否在点-非点市场参与上决堤?

Carson J. Reeling, R. Horan, Cloé Garnache
{"title":"当大堤决堤:多污染物市场能否在点-非点市场参与上决堤?","authors":"Carson J. Reeling, R. Horan, Cloé Garnache","doi":"10.1002/ajae.12005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High transaction costs and thin participation plague water quality trading and prevent markets from delivering expected efficiency gains. Little prior work explores the relationship between transactions costs and market performance. We develop a model of point–nonpoint trading that includes transactions costs. Point sources (PS) generate a single pollutant, whereas nonpoint sources (NPS) generate multiple, complementary pollutants. Trading occurs via bilateral negotiation: regulated PS must find and contract with unregulated NPS to obtain pollution offsets. Each PS bears search and contracting costs that depend on the number of potential trading partners. The NPS sector does not pay search costs but may incur some contracting costs. These costs may affect participation decisions. Transactions costs may generate strategic complementarities that lead to multiple equilibria, characterized by large or small levels of market participation. The equilibrium at which the market arrives depends on sources' expectations about others' participation. We explore the effect of different market structures on trading outcomes. Allowing NPS to participate in multiple, distinct markets for each pollutant they abate may have little effect on the basin of attraction for trading. In contrast, integrated markets—in which regulated polluters can meet their caps by holding permits generated from abatement of either pollutant—can reduce transactions costs for both sources. This generates a larger basin of attraction around the full‐participation equilibrium and thus may improve the efficiency of pollution trading.","PeriodicalId":7501,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal","volume":"116 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When the Levee Breaks: Can Multi‐Pollutant Markets Break the Dam on Point–Nonpoint Market Participation?\",\"authors\":\"Carson J. Reeling, R. Horan, Cloé Garnache\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ajae.12005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"High transaction costs and thin participation plague water quality trading and prevent markets from delivering expected efficiency gains. Little prior work explores the relationship between transactions costs and market performance. We develop a model of point–nonpoint trading that includes transactions costs. Point sources (PS) generate a single pollutant, whereas nonpoint sources (NPS) generate multiple, complementary pollutants. Trading occurs via bilateral negotiation: regulated PS must find and contract with unregulated NPS to obtain pollution offsets. Each PS bears search and contracting costs that depend on the number of potential trading partners. The NPS sector does not pay search costs but may incur some contracting costs. These costs may affect participation decisions. Transactions costs may generate strategic complementarities that lead to multiple equilibria, characterized by large or small levels of market participation. The equilibrium at which the market arrives depends on sources' expectations about others' participation. We explore the effect of different market structures on trading outcomes. Allowing NPS to participate in multiple, distinct markets for each pollutant they abate may have little effect on the basin of attraction for trading. In contrast, integrated markets—in which regulated polluters can meet their caps by holding permits generated from abatement of either pollutant—can reduce transactions costs for both sources. This generates a larger basin of attraction around the full‐participation equilibrium and thus may improve the efficiency of pollution trading.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7501,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"116 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajae.12005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural & Natural Resource Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajae.12005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

高交易成本和参与率低困扰着水质交易,并阻碍市场实现预期的效率提升。之前很少有研究探讨交易成本和市场绩效之间的关系。我们开发了一个包含交易成本的点-非点交易模型。点源(PS)产生单一污染物,而非点源(NPS)产生多种互补污染物。交易是通过双边谈判进行的:受监管的PS必须找到不受监管的NPS并与之签订合同,以获得污染抵消。每个PS承担的搜索和签约成本取决于潜在贸易伙伴的数量。国民年金部门不支付搜索费用,但可能会产生一些合同费用。这些成本可能会影响参与决策。交易成本可能产生战略互补性,从而导致多重均衡,其特点是市场参与程度或大或小。市场达到的均衡取决于资源对其他人参与的期望。我们探讨了不同的市场结构对交易结果的影响。允许NPS参与多个不同的市场,针对它们减少的每一种污染物,可能对交易的吸引力影响不大。相比之下,一体化市场可以降低两种来源的交易成本。在一体化市场中,受监管的污染者可以通过持有任何一种污染物减排产生的许可证来达到上限。这在充分参与均衡周围产生了更大的吸引力,从而可能提高污染交易的效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When the Levee Breaks: Can Multi‐Pollutant Markets Break the Dam on Point–Nonpoint Market Participation?
High transaction costs and thin participation plague water quality trading and prevent markets from delivering expected efficiency gains. Little prior work explores the relationship between transactions costs and market performance. We develop a model of point–nonpoint trading that includes transactions costs. Point sources (PS) generate a single pollutant, whereas nonpoint sources (NPS) generate multiple, complementary pollutants. Trading occurs via bilateral negotiation: regulated PS must find and contract with unregulated NPS to obtain pollution offsets. Each PS bears search and contracting costs that depend on the number of potential trading partners. The NPS sector does not pay search costs but may incur some contracting costs. These costs may affect participation decisions. Transactions costs may generate strategic complementarities that lead to multiple equilibria, characterized by large or small levels of market participation. The equilibrium at which the market arrives depends on sources' expectations about others' participation. We explore the effect of different market structures on trading outcomes. Allowing NPS to participate in multiple, distinct markets for each pollutant they abate may have little effect on the basin of attraction for trading. In contrast, integrated markets—in which regulated polluters can meet their caps by holding permits generated from abatement of either pollutant—can reduce transactions costs for both sources. This generates a larger basin of attraction around the full‐participation equilibrium and thus may improve the efficiency of pollution trading.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Climate Change and State-Building in the World’s Most Agricultural Countries The heterogeneous effects of agricultural conservation easements on the loss of farmland to development in New England Displacement Risk in Agricultural Commodity Markets: The Impact of Plant-Based Meat Interest Group Responses to Reform Efforts in the U.S. House of Representatives: The Case of Big Sugar Fishing under the Radar: Illuminating the Compliance Gap of Fishing Bans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1