Why does environmental policy in representative democracies tend to be inadequate? A preliminary public choice analysis

Sustainability

Volumn 2, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 3710-3734

  Kollmann, Andrea ^a   Schneider, Friedrich ^a  

^a JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITY LINZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

Government; Green taxes; Interest groups; Public choice and environmental policies; Sustainability; Tradable permits; Voters

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867297986     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su2123710     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Wachs, M. A Dozen Reasons for Raising Gasoline Taxes; Research Report UCB-ITS-RR-2003-1; Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California (Berkeley): Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003.
2. Unalan, D.; Cowell, R.J. Europeanization, strategic environmental assessment and the impacts on environmental governance. Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 32-43.
3. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
4. Europe's Climate Change Opportunity: 20-20 by 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; COM (2008) 30 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
5. Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level-and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 197-214.
6. Endres, A.; Ohl, C. Kyoto, Europe?-An economic evaluation of the European emission trading directive. J. Law Econ. 2005, 19, 17-39.
7. Bailey, I.; Rupp, S. Geography and climate policy: A comparative assessment of new environmental policy instruments in the UK and Germany. Geoforum 2005, 36, 387-401.
8. Schepelmann, P.; Stock, M.; Koska, T.; Schüle, R.; Reutter, O. A Green New Deal for Europe-Towards Green Modernization in the Face of Crisis; Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy: Wuppertal, Germany, 2009.
9. Sandoff, A.; Schaad, G. Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants. Energ. Policy 2009, 37, 3967-3977.
10. Svendsen, G.T.; Daugbjerg, C.; Hjollund, L.; Pedersen, A.B. Consumers, industrialists and the political economy of green taxation: CO2 taxation in OECD. Energ. Policy 2001, 29, 489-497.
11. Schneider, F.; Volkert, J. No chance for incentive oriented environmental policies in representative democracies? A public choice analysis. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 31, 123-138.
12. Kirchgässner, G.; Schneider, F. On the Political Economy of Environmental Policy; CESifo Working Papers, NO 741; CESifo Group: Munich, Germany, 2002.
13. Anthoff, D.; Hahn, R. Government failure and market failure: On the inefficiency of environmental and energy policy. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2010, 26, 197-224.
14. Schneider, F.; Weck-Hannemann, H. Why is economic theory ignored in environmental policy practice. Appl. Res. Environ. Econ. 2005, 31, 257-275.
15. Smith, S.; Vos, H.B. Evaluating Economic Instruments for Environmental Policy; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 1997.
16. Stavins, R.N. Experience with marked-based environmental policy instruments. In Handbook of Environmental Economics-Volume 1 Environmental Degradation and Institutional Responses; Mäler, K.-G., Vincent, J.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003.
17. Santos, R.; Antunes, P.; Baptista, G.; Mateus, P.; Madruga, L. Stakeholder participation in the design of environmental policy mixes. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 100-110.
18. Dresner, S.; Dunne, L.; Clinch, P.; Beuermann, C. Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: An introduction to the special issue. Energ. Policy 2006, 34, 895-904.
19. Frey, B.S.; Stutzer, A. Environmental Morale and Motivation; CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-17; Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts: Basel, Switzerland, 2007.
20. Goers, S.R.; Wagner, A.F.; Wegmayr, J. New and old market-based instruments for climate change policy. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2010, 12, 1-30.
21. Anger, N.; Böhringer, C.; Oberndorfer, U. Public Interest vs. Interest Groups: Allowance Allocation in the EU Emission Trading Scheme; Discussion Paper No. 08-023; Centre for European Economic Research: Mannheim, Germany, 2008.
22. Goeree, J.K.; Holt, C.A.; Palmer, K.; Shobe, W.; Burtraw, D. An Experimental Study of Auctions versus Grandfathering to Assign Pollution Permits; Discussion Paper; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Volume RFF DP 09-39.
23. Benz, E.; Löschel, A.; Sturm, B. Auctioning of CO2 Emission Allowances in Phase 3 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme; Discussion Paper No. 08-081; Centre for European Economic Research: Mannheim, Germany, 2008.
24. Ellerman, A.D.; Joskow, P.L. The European Union's Emissions Trading System in Perspective; Prepared for Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
25. Convery, F.J. Reflections-The emerging literature on emissions trading in Europe. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2009, 3, 121-137.
26. Agnolucci, P. The effect of the German and British environmental taxation reforms: A simple assessment. Energ. Policy 2009, 37, 3043-3051.
27. Patuelli, R.; Nijkamp, P.; Pels, E. Environmental tax reform and the double dividend: A meta-analytical performance assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 564-583.
28. Anger, N.; Böhringer, C.; Löschel, A. Paying the piper and calling the tune? A meta-regression analysis of the double-dividend hypothesis. Ecol .Econ. 2010, 69, 1495-1502.
29. Ciocirlan, C.E.; Yandle, B. The political economy of green taxation in OECD countries. Eur. J. Law Econ. 2003, 15, 203-218.
30. Felder, S.; Schleiniger, R. Environmental tax reform: Efficiency and political feasibility. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42, 107-116.
31. Oates, W.E.; Portney, P.R. The political economy of environmental policy. In Environmental Degradation and Institutional Responses; Mäler, K.-G., Vincent, J.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 1, pp. 325-354.
32. Stavins, R.; Keohane, N.; Revesz, R. The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy; Discussion Papers 97-25; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
33. Lai, Y.-B. Auctions or grandfathering: The political theory of tradable emission permits. Public Choice 2008, 136, 181-200.
34. Llewellyn, J. The political economy of national climate change mitigation policies. OECD Working paper ECO/CPE/WP1(2010)18; OECD: Paris, France, 2010.
35. Rondinelli, D.A.; Berry, M.A. Corporate environmental management and public policy: Bridging the gap. Am. Behav. Sci. 2000, 44, 168-187.
36. Wüstenhagen, R.; Bilharz, M. Green energy market development in Germany: Effective public policy and emerging customer demand. Energ. Policy 2006, 34, 1681-1696.
37. Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment; Report Special Eurobarometer 247, 2008; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
38. Europeans' Attitudes towards Climate Change; Report Special Eurobarometer 313, 2009; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
39. Eurobarometer 72, Public Opinion in the European Union; Report No.72, 2009; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
40. Welsch, H. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecol. Econ.2006, 58, 801-813.
41. Welsch, H. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2735-2742.
42. Halla, M.; Schneider, F.; Wagner, A. Satisfaction with Democracy and Collective Action Problems: The Case of the Environment; Working Paper No. 0808; Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University: Linz, Austria, 2008.
43. Layton, D.F.; Levine, R. How much does the far future matter? A hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the public's willingness to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2003, 98, 533-544.
44. Deroubaix, J.-F.; Leveque, F. The rise and fall of French ecological tax reform: Social acceptability versus political feasibility in the energy tax implementation process. Energ. Policy 2004, 34, 940-949.
45. Clinch, J.; Dunne, L. Environmental tax reform: An assessment of social responses in Ireland. Energ. Policy 2006, 34, 950-959.
46. Beuermann, C.; Santarius, T. Ecological tax reform in Germany: Handling two hot potatoes at the same time. Energ. Policy 2006, 34, 917-929.
47. Klok, J.; Larsen, A.; Dahl, A.; Hansen, K. Ecological tax reform in Denmark: History and social acceptability. Energ. Policy 2006, 34, 905-916.
48. Owens, S.; Driffill, L. How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energ. Policy 2008, 36, 4412-4418.
49. Ghalwash, T. Energy taxes as a signaling device: An empirical analysis of consumer preferences. Energ. Policy 2005, 35, 29-38.
50. Graham, D.J.; Glaister, S. Decomposing the determinants of road traffic demand. Appl. Econ. 2005, 37, 19-28.
51. Romero-Jordán, D.; del Ríob, P.; Jorge-Garcíac, M.; Burguillod, M. Price and income elasticities of demand for passenger transport fuels in Spain. Implications for public policies. Energ. Policy 2010, 38, 3898-3909.
52. Brons, M.; Nijkamp, P.; Pels, E.; Rietveld, P. A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand. A SUR approach. Energ. Econ. 2008, 30, 2105-2122.
53. Feld, L.; Frey, B. Trust breeds trust: How Taxpayers are treated. Econ. Govern. 2002, 3, 87-99.
54. Brännlund, R.; Persson, L. Tax or No Tax? Preferences for Climate Policy Attributes; Working Paper No. 2010:4; Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics, Umeå University: Umeå, Sweden, 2010.
55. Thalmann, P. The public acceptance of green taxes: 2 million voters express their opinion. Public Choice 2004, 119, 179-217.
56. Bornstein, N.; Lanz, B. Voting on the environment: Price or ideology? Evidence from Swiss referendums. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67, 430-440.
57. Van der Bergh, J.C. Safe climate policy is affordable-12 reasons. Climatic Chang 2010, 101, 339-385.
58. Howarth, R.B. Intertemporal social choice and climate stabilization. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 15, 386-403.
59. Ackerman, F.; DeCanio, S.J.; Howarth, R.B.; Sheeran, K. Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Climatic Chang 2009, 95, 297-315.
60. Mueller, D.C. Public Choice III; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003.
61. Maux, B.L. Governmental behavior in representative democracy: A synthesis of the theoretical literature. Public Choice 2009, 141, 447-465.
62. Böhringer, C.; Vogt, C. The dismantling of a breakthrough: The Kyoto Protocol as symbolic policy. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 2004, 20, 597-617.
63. Weck-Hannemann, H. Environmental politics. In Readings in Public Choice and Constitutional Political Economy; Rowley, C.K., Schneider, F.G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008.
64. List, J.A.; Sturm, D.M. How elections matter: Theory and evidence from environmental policy. Q. J. Econ. 2006, 121, 1249-1281.
65. Franzese, R.J. Electoral and partisan cycles in economic policies and outcomes. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2002, 5, 369-421.
66. Tellier, G. Public expenditures in Canadian provinces: An empirical study of politico-economic interactions. Public Choice 2006, 126, 367-385.
67. Frey, B.S.; Schneider, F. A politico-economic model of the United Kingdom. Econ. J. 1978, 88, 243-253.
68. Oberholzer-Gee, F.; Weck-Hannemann, H. Pricing road use: Politico-economic and fairness considerations. Transp. Res. Part D Trans. Environ. 2002, 7, 357-371.
69. Lehmann, W. Lobbying in the European Union: Current Rules and Practices; Working Paper, Constitutional Affairs Series, AFCO 104 EN; European Parliament: Luxembourg, 2003.
70. Coen, D. Lobbying in the European Union; Working Paper, PE 393. 226; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
71. Eising, R. Institutional context, organizational resources and strategic choices. Eur. Union Polit. 2007, 8, 329-362.
72. Becker, G. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Q. J. Econ. 1983, 98, 371-400.
73. Brandt, U.S.; Svendsen, G.T. Rent-seeking and Grandfathering: The Case of GHG Trade in the EU; Working Paper 35/02; Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark: Odense, Denmark, 2002.
74. Svendsen, G.T. Lobbyism and CO2 Trade in the EU. Presented at the 10th Symposium of The Egon-Sohmen-Foundation, Dresden, Germany, 2002; Working Papers 02-16; Department of Economics, Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus: Aarhus, Denmark, 2002.
75. Markussen, P.; Svendsen, G.T.; Vesterdal, M. The Political Economy of a Tradeable GHG Permit Market in the European Union; Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus: Aarhus, Denmark, 1998.
76. Brandt, U.S.; Svendsen, G.T. The Political Economy of Climate Change Policy in the EU: Auction and Grandfathering; Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark: Esbjerg, Denmark, 2003.
77. Anger, N.; Böhringer, C.; Lange, A. Differention of Green Taxes: A Political-Economy Analysis for Germany; Discussion Paper No. 06-003, 2006; Centre for European Economic Research: Mannheim, Germany, 2006.
78. Aidt, T. Green taxes: Refunding rules and lobbying. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2010, 60, 31-43.
79. Gullberg, A.T. Lobbying friends and foes in climate policy: The case of business and environmental interest groups in the Eruropean Union. Energ. Policy 2008, 36, 2964-2972.
80. Markussen, P.; Svendsen, G.T. Industry lobbying and the political economy of GHG trade in the European Union. Energ. Policy 2005, 33, 245-255.
81. Niskanen, W. Bureaucracy and Representative Government; Aldine-Atherton: Chicago, IL, USA, 1971.
82. Chang, C.; Turnbull, G.K. Bureaucratic behavior in the local public sector: A revealed preference approach. Public Choice 2002, 113, 191-209.
83. Stavins, R.N. Market-based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience (and Related Research)? Discussion Paper 03-43; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
84. Betz, R. Emissions trading to combat climate change: The impact of scheme design on transaction costs; Available online: http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/content/documents/betz-paper_ AARES.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2010).
85. McCann, L.; Colby, B.; Easter, K.W.; Kasterine, A.; Kuperan, K. Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 527-542; Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-4FD79R6-2/2/8ac68e4d3833a50eef81b6e0 bfed89a1 (accessed on 1 October 2010).