[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25247.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Income Distributional Effects of Using Market-Based Instruments for Managing Common Property Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Msangi, Siwa
  • Howitt, Richard E.
Abstract
In the face of growing management problems and conflicts over increasing demands and dwindling or increasingly variable supplies of surface and groundwater, the need for revising the conventional water resource allocation methods has been increasingly felt among natural resource managers and policy makers. For the past 30 years economists have advocated for the application of various types of market-based instruments (MBIs) as an efficient means of effecting the re-allocation water resources among competing uses. While MBIs have been implemented in several countries, they have continued to encounter strong socio-political opposition, due to the impacts imposed on third-parties during transfers and re-allocations, as well as the distributional effects across different types of water users. Despite the demonstrable efficiency gains of MBIs, the resulting equity or distributional effects of MBI-driven re-allocations can be of equal or greater importance to policy-makers and the constituents that they serve. At the same time, the realized gains in economic efficiency from the application of MBIs depend heavily on the heterogeneity of the agents they are targeted towards, as well as the degree of information asymmetry that the regulator faces. In this paper, we use a simple theoretical framework to show the trade-offs between efficiency and equity that might arise from the application of MBIs to a heterogenous population of agents drawing non-cooperatively from a natural resource pool. Using the idealized centralized planner as a benchmark of dynamic, allocative efficiency, we compare the realized efficiency gains that can be realized by alternative policy instruments and the resulting impacts on distributional equity, in terms of the cumulative net benefits over time. Using the specific example of groundwater and the empirical setting of Southern California, we are able to highlight the trade-offs between efficiency and equity that might exist among alternative policy instruments, and how MBIs perform with respect to those dual criteria. We find that under agent heterogeneity, there are asymmetric gains in efficiency when the centralized planner allocations are constrained by equity considerations. Through such results, this paper demonstrates the importance of considering both efficiency gains and the minimization of disparities in distributional inequity, when designing policy instruments that create winners and losers with potentially serious socio-political ramifications.

Suggested Citation

  • Msangi, Siwa & Howitt, Richard E., 2006. "Income Distributional Effects of Using Market-Based Instruments for Managing Common Property Resources," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25247, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25247
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25247/files/ip06ms01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth L. Judd, 1998. "Numerical Methods in Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262100711, April.
    2. James J. Murphy & Ariel Dinar & Richard E. Howitt & Erin Mastrangelo & Stephen J. Rassenti & Vernon L. Smith, 2006. "Mechanisms for Addressing Third-Party Impacts Resulting From Voluntary Water Transfers," Chapters, in: John A. List (ed.), Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Farrell, Joseph, 1987. "Information and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 113-129, Fall.
    4. Kim, C. S. & Moore, Michael R. & Hanchar, John J. & Nieswiadomy, Michael, 1989. "A dynamic model of adaptation to resource depletion: theory and an application to groundwater mining," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 66-82, July.
    5. Eli Feinerman, 1988. "Groundwater Management: Efficiency and Equity Considerations," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, June.
    6. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. McGartland, Albert M. & Oates, Wallace E., 1985. "Marketable permits for the prevention of environmental deterioration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 207-228, September.
    8. Knapp Keith C. & Olson Lars J., 1995. "The Economics of Conjunctive Groundwater Management with Stochastic Surface Supplies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 340-356, May.
    9. Richard Bellman, 1957. "On a Dynamic Programming Approach to the Caterer Problem--I," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 270-278, April.
    10. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard & Bailey, Elizabeth M, 1998. "The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 669-685, September.
    11. Tsur, Yacov & Dinar, Ariel, 1995. "Efficiency and equity considerations in pricing and allocating irrigation water," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1460, The World Bank.
    12. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    13. Eli Feinerman & Keith C. Knapp, 1983. "Benefits from Groundwater Management: Magnitude, Sensitivity, and Distribution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(4), pages 703-710.
    14. T. Takayama & G. G. Judge, 1964. "Spatial Equilibrium and Quadratic Programming," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 67-93.
    15. Feinerman, Eli, 1988. "Groundwater management: Efficiency and equity considerations," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Massimiliano Calì & Stephan Nolte & Nicola Cantore, 2013. "Sweet and Sour Changes in Trade Regimes," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 786-806, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knapp, Keith C. & Baerenklau, Kenneth A., 2006. "Ground Water Quantity and Quality Management: Agricultural Production and Aquifer Salinization over Long Time Scales," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Laukkanen, Marita & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Competition versus coopertion in groundwater extraction: A stochastic framework with heteregoneous agents," MPRA Paper 41910, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Nasim, Sanval & Helfand, Steven & Dinar, Ariel, 2020. "Groundwater management under heterogeneous land tenure arrangements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Holland, Stephen P. & Moore, Michael R., 2000. "Cadillac Desert Revisited: Property Rights, Public Policy, And Water-Resource Depletion In The American West," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21861, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Blanco-Gutiérrez, Irene & Varela-Ortega, Consuelo & Flichman, Guillermo, 2011. "Cost-effectiveness of groundwater conservation measures: A multi-level analysis with policy implications," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 639-652, February.
    6. Singh, Rajesh & Weninger, Quinn, 2009. "Bioeconomies of scope and the discard problem in multiple-species fisheries," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 72-92, July.
    7. Stahn, Hubert & Tomini, Agnes, 2021. "Externality and common-pool resources: The case of artesian aquifers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Murielle Djiguemde & Dimitri Dubois & Alexandre Sauquet & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "On the modeling and testing of groundwater resource models," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02316729, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    9. Anne Sophie Crépin, 2003. "Threshold Effects in Coral Reef Fisheries," Working Papers 2003.107, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Guilfoos, Todd & Pape, Andreas D. & Khanna, Neha & Salvage, Karen, 2013. "Groundwater management: The effect of water flows on welfare gains," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 31-40.
    11. Diana Dijk & Eligius M. T. Hendrix & Rene Haijema & Rolf A. Groeneveld & Ekko C. Ierland, 2017. "An Adjustment Restriction on Fish Quota: Resource Rents, Overcapacity and Recovery of Fish Stock," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(2), pages 203-230, June.
    12. Sethi, Gautam & Costello, Christopher & Fisher, Anthony & Hanemann, Michael & Karp, Larry, 2005. "Fishery management under multiple uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 300-318, September.
    13. John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2009. "An Experimental Analysis of Optimal Renewable Resource Management: The Fishery," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 263-285, October.
    14. Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Current Issues in the Economics of Groundwater Resource Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 703-740, December.
    15. Burness, H. Stuart & Brill, Thomas C., 2001. "The role for policy in common pool groundwater use," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 19-40, January.
    16. Pamela Giselle Katic, 2010. "Spatial dynamics and optimal resource extraction," Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy Papers 1002, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    17. Steven G. Medema, 2020. "The Coase Theorem at Sixty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1045-1128, December.
    18. Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N. & Kerr, Suzi, 2005. "Fishing quota markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 437-462, May.
    19. Phoebe Koundouri, 2003. "Potential for groundwater management: Gisser-Sanchez effect reconsidered," DEOS Working Papers 0307, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. Faye, Amy & Msangi, Siwa, 2018. "Rainfall variability and groundwater availability for irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from the Niayes region of Senegal," MPRA Paper 92625, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.