Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:57:01.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing correlated stock externalities: water taxes with a pinch of salt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2010

SOPHIE LEGRAS
SOPHIE LEGRAS*
Affiliation:
Toulouse School of Economics (LERNA/INRA), 21 allée de Brienne, Aile J.J. Laffont, 31000 Toulouse, France. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses the design of corrective taxation schemes to manage multiple, interacting stocks. In the setting of irrigation-induced salinity, a collective groundwater stock aliments a set of individual rootzone salt stocks. It is shown that the policy maker does not need to base the tax rule on the individual salt stocks. Indeed, taxes based on the level of input and on the collective stock induce the agents to achieve the socially optimal irrigation path. An even simpler instrument is sufficient if the policy-maker's goal is to reach optimality at the steady state only.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 275 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, S. (2008), ‘The incredible economics of geoengineering’, Environmental and Resource Economics 39: 45–54.Google Scholar
Benchekroun, H. and Long, N.V. (1998), ‘Efficiency inducing taxation for polluting oligopolists’, Journal of Public Economics 70: 325–342.Google Scholar
Bergland, O., Ready, R., and Romstad, E. (2006), ‘Differentiating at the speed of light in a universe of trees and moose’, in Aronsson, T., Axelsson, R. and Brannlund, R. (eds), The Theory And Practice Of Environmental And Resource Economics – Essays In Honor Of Karl-Gustaf Löfgren, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 202–224.Google Scholar
Bond, C.A. and Farzin, Y.H. (2008), ‘Agroecosystem modeling and optimal economic decisions: implications for sustainable agriculture’, Optimal Control Applications and Methods 29 (1): 59–80.Google Scholar
Caplan, A.J. (2006), ‘A comparison of emission taxes and permit markets for controlling correlated externalities’, Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (4): 471–492.Google Scholar
Caplan, A.J. and Silva, E.C.D. (2005), ‘An efficient mechanism to control correlated externalities: redistributive transfers and the coexistence of regional and global pollution permit markets’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49: 68–82.Google Scholar
Crépin, A.S. (2003), ‘Multiple species boreal forests – what Faustmann missed’, Environmental and Resource Economics 26 (4): 625–646.Google Scholar
Dockner, E. (1985), ‘Local stability analysis in optimal control problems with two state variables’, in Feichtinger, G. (ed), Optimal Control Theory and Economic Analysis 2, Amsterdam, NY: Elsevier, pp. 89–103.Google Scholar
Dockner, E., Jorgensen, S., Long, N.V., and Sorger, G. (2000), Differential Games in Economics and Management Science, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horan, R.D., Shortle, J.S., and Abler, D.G. (1998), ‘Ambient taxes when polluters have multiple choices’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36: 186–199.Google Scholar
Kahlown, M.H. and Azam, M. (2002), ‘Individual and combined effect of waterlogging and salinity on crop yields in the Indus basin’, Irrigation and Drainage 51: 329–338.Google Scholar
Karp, L. and Livernois, J. (1992), ‘On efficiency-inducing taxation for a nonrenewable resource monopolist’, Journal of Public Economics 49: 219–239.Google Scholar
Ko, I.D., Lapan, H.E., and Sandler, T. (1992), ‘Controlling stock externalities – flexible versus inflexible Pigovian corrections’, European Economic Review 35: 1263–1276.Google Scholar
Legras, S. and Lifran, R. (2006), ‘Dynamic taxation schemes to manage irrigation induced salinity’, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 11: 157–167.Google Scholar
Maas, E.V. and Hoffman, G.J. (1977), ‘Crop salt tolerance - current assessment’, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division ASCE103(IR2): 115–134.Google Scholar
Moslener, U. and Requate, T. (2007), ‘Optimal abatement in dynamic multi-pollutant problems when pollutants can be complements or substitutes’, Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control 31: 2293–2316.Google Scholar
Moslener, U. and Requate, T. (2009), ‘The dynamics of optimal abatement strategies for multiple pollutants - an illustration in the Greenhouse’, Ecological Economics 68: 1521–1534.Google Scholar
Oosterbaan, R.J. (2002), SALTMOD – Description of Principles, User Manual, and Examples of Application, Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement.Google Scholar
Ragozin, D. and Brown, G. (1985), ‘Harvest policies and nonmarket valuation in a predator-prey system’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12: 155–168.Google Scholar
Reilly, J., Prinn, R., Harnisch, J., Fitzmaurice, J., Jacoby, H., Kicklighter, D., Melillo, J., Stone, P., Sokolov, A., and Wang, C. (1999), ‘Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol’, Nature 401: 549–555.Google Scholar
Reilly, J. and Richards, K.R. (1993), ‘Climate change and the trace gas index issue’, Environmental and Resource Economics 3: 41–61.Google Scholar
Saleth, R.M. (1994), ‘Towards a new water institution: economics, law, and policy’, Economic and Political Weekly 29 (39): A147–A155.Google Scholar
Schmieman, E.C., Van Ierland, E.C., and Hordijk, L. (2002), ‘Dynamic efficiency with multi-pollutants and multi-targets: case of acidification and tropospheric ozone formation in Europe’, Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 133–148.Google Scholar
Wichelns, D. (1999), ‘An economic model of waterlogging and salinization in arid regions’, Ecological Economics 30 (3): 475–491.Google Scholar
Yang, Z. (2006), ‘Negatively correlated local and global stock externalities: tax or subsidy?’, Environment and Development Economics 11: 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar