Can Understanding Spatial Equilibria Enhance Benefit Transfers for Environmental Policy Evaluation?

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 69 - Trang 591-608 - 2018
Nicolai V. Kuminoff1,2
1Economics Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
2National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, USA

Tóm tắt

A conceptual model of consumer sorting in markets for housing, labor and health care is outlined and used to make three points about how benefit transfers are used for environmental policy evaluation. First, the standard approach to assessing benefits of air quality improvements by transferring the value of a statistical life from labor market studies embeds several untested (but testable) assumptions. Second, if the cost of an environmental policy exceeds its capitalized effect on housing prices, then the capitalization effect is an insufficient statistic for determining whether benefits exceed costs. Third, there are several ways in which equilibrium sorting models may be usefully extended to assess distributional welfare effects of environmental policies.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Armona L, Fuster A, Zafar B (2016) Home price expectations and behavior: evidence from a randomized information experiment. Working paper Bajari P, Benkard CL (2005) Demand estimation with heterogeneous consumers and unobserved product characteristics: a hedonic approach. J Polit Econ 113(6):1239–1276 Banzhaf HS (2015) Panel-data hedonics: Rosen’s first stage and differences-in-differences as “sufficient statistics”. NBER working paper 21485 Banzhaf HS, Walsh RP (2008) Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of Tiebout’s mechanism. Amer Econ Rev 98(3):843–63 Bayer P, Keohane N, Timmins C (2009) Migration and hedonic valuation: the case of air quality. J Environ Econ Manag 58(1):1–14 Bieri D, Kuminoff NV, Pope JC (2014) National expenditures on local amenities. Working paper Bishop RC, Boyle KJ, Carson RT, Chapman D, Hanemann WM, Kanninen B, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, List J, Meade N, Paterson R, Presser S, Smith VK, Tourangeau R, Welsh M, Wooldridge JM, DeBell M, Donovan C, Konopka M, Scherer N (2017) Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: the BP oil spill. Science 356(6335):253–254 Blomquist GC, Berger MC, Hoehn JP (1988) New estimates of quality of life in urban areas. Am Econ Rev 78(1):89–107 Chay KY, Greenstone M (2005) Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market. J Polit Econ 113(2):376–424 Costa DL, Kahn ME (2004) Changes in the value of life, 1940–1980. J Risk Uncertain 29(2):159–180 Cropper M, Sinha P (2013) The value of climate amenities: evidence from US migration decisions. NBER working paper #18756 Davis L (2004) The effect of health risk on housing values: evidence from a cancer cluster. Am Econ Rev 94(5):1693–1704 English E, McConnell K (2015) Overview of the damage assessment for lost recreational use. Technical Memorandum A: DWH-AR0021412. https://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord Ekeland I, Heckman JJ, Nesheim L (2004) Identification and estimation of hedonic models. J Polit Econ 112:S60–S109 Finkelstein A, Gentzkow M, Williams H (2016) Sources of geographic variation in health care: evidence from patient migration. Q J Econ 131(4):1681–1726 Galiani S, Murphy A, Pantano J (2015) Estimating neighborhood choice models: lessons from a housing assistance experiment. Am Econ Rev 105(11):3385–3415 Gamper-Rabindran S, Timmins C (2013) Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values? Evidence of spatially localized benefits. J Environ Econ Manag 65:345–360 Graff-Zivin J, Neidell M (2013) Environment, health, and human capital. J Econ Lit 51(3):689–730 Greenstone M, Gallagher J (2008) Does hazardous waste matter? Evidence from the housing market and the superfund program. Q J Econ 123:951–1003 Hall RE, Jones CI (2007) The value of life and the rise in health spending. Q J Econ 122(1):39–72 Hamilton T, Phaneuf D (2015) An integrated model of regional and local residential sorting with application to air quality. J Environ Econ Manag 75:71–93 Hazilla M, Kopp RJ (1990) Social cost of environmental quality regulations: a general equilibrium analysis. J Polit Econ 98(4):853–873 Keiser DA, Shapiro JS (2017) Consequences of the clean water act and the demand for water quality. Q J Econ (Forthcoming) Ketcham JD, Kuminoff NV, Powers CP (2016) Estimating the heterogeneous welfare effects of choice architecture: an application to the medicare prescription drug insurance market. NBER working paper #22732 Kneisner TJ, Viscusi WK, Woock C, Zilak JP (2012) The value of a statistical life: evidence from panel data. Rev Econ Stat 94(1):74–87 Kuminoff NV, Pope JC (2014) Do capitalization effects measure the willingness to pay for public goods? Int Econ Rev 55(4):1227–1250 Kuminoff NV, Parmeter C, Pope JC (2010) Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 60:145–160 Lee J, Taylor L (2014) Randomized safety inspections and risk exposure on the job: quasi-experimental estimates of the value of a statistical life. Working paper Leggett CG (2002) Environmental valuation with imperfect information. Environ Resour Econ 23:343–355 Lind RC (1973) Spatial equilibrium, the theory of rents, and the measurement of benefits from public programs. Q J Econ 87:188–207 Mangum K (2015) Cities and labor market dynamics. WJ usery workplace research group paper series working paper 2015-2-3 Mrozek JR, Taylor LO (2002) What determines the value of life? A meta-analysis. J Policy Anal Manag 21(2):253–270 Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD (2013) Deaths: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep 61(4):1–118 Pope JC (2008) Buyer information and the hedonic: the impact of a seller disclosure on the implicit price of airport noise. J Urban Econ 63:498–516 Roback J (1982) Wages, rents, and the quality of life. J Polit Econ 90(6):1257–1278 Schlenker W, Walker RW (2016) Airports, air pollution, and contemporaneous health. Rev Econ Stud 83(2):768–809 Sieg H, Smith VK, Banzhaf HS, Walsh R (2004) Estimating the general equilibrium benefits of large changes in spatially delineated public goods. Int Econ Rev 45(4):1047–77 Smith VK, Sieg H, Banzhaf HS, Walsh R (2004) General equilibrium benefits for environmental improvements: projected ozone reductions under EPA’s prospective analysis for the Los Angeles air basin. J Environ Econ Manag 47(3):559–584 Starrett DA (1981) Land value capitalization in local public finance. J Polit Econ 89:306–327 Sullivan DA (2017) The true cost of air pollution: evidence from the housing market. Working paper Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–24 Turner MA Benefits transfer and spatial equilibrium. Environ Resour Econ United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999) The benefits and costs of the clean air act: 1990 to 2010. EPA-410-R-99-001 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Guidelines for preparing economic analyses. EPA-240-R-10-001 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) The benefits and costs of the clean air act: 1990 to 2020 Von Haefen RH (2016) Damage estimates and sensitivities. In: Presentation slides from AERE summary conference, 10 June 2016. https://sites.google.com/site/aeresummerconference/special-session Walker WR (2013) The transitional costs of sectoral reallocation: evidence from the clean air act and the workforce. Q J Econ 128(4):1787–1835