Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy
Tóm tắt
We explore the relationship between willingness to pay (WTP) for climate change mitigation and distributional preferences, by which we mean individuals’ opinions about who should be responsible for climate change prevention and whether the share of climate change impacts borne by the poor is a cause for concern. We use 1,770 responses to an online stated preference survey. The domestic costs in our survey’s policy choice scenarios are expressed as a set of randomized shares across four different payment vehicles, and the international cost shares are randomized across four groups of countries. We also elicit respondents’ perceptions of the likely regressivity of climate change impacts under a policy of business-as-usual. WTP is higher when larger cost shares are borne by parties deemed to bear a greater responsibility for mitigation, and when respondents believe (and care) that the impacts of climate change may be borne disproportionately by the world’s poor. That WTP for an environmental policy depends on the distributional consequences of the policy is an unsettling result: efficiency assessments are typically assumed to be separate from equity considerations in most benefit-cost analyses.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anthoff D, Hepburn C, Tol RSJ (2009) Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. Ecol Econ 68(3): 836–849
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10): 4601–4614
Atkinson G, Machado F, Mourato S (2000) Balancing competing principles of environmental equity. Enivron Plan A 32(10): 1791–1806
Azar C, Sterner T (1996) Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming. Ecol Econ 19(2): 169–184
Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Yabe M (2004) Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 28(4): 533–549
Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva CL, Ganderton P, Brookshire D (1998) A joint investigation of public support and public values: the case of instream flows in New Mexico. Ecol Econ 27(2): 189–203
Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Weimer DL (2003) The advent of Internet surveys for political research: a comparison of telephone and Internet samples. Polit Anal 11(1): 1–22
Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. J Environ Econ Manag 47(2): 331–363
Bosello F, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2006) Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: human health. Ecol Econ 58(3): 579–591
Burghart DR, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2007) Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention. J Risk Uncertain 35(1): 77–105
Cameron TA (2005a) Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. J Public Econ 89(2–3): 283–301
Cameron TA (2005b) Updating subjective risks in the presence of conflicting information: an application to climate change. J Risk Uncertain 30(1): 63–97
Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2005) Individual subjective discounting: form, context, format, and noise. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Oregon, 52 pp
Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2006) Discounting versus risk aversion: their effects on individual demands for climate change mitigation. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Oregon, 56 pp
Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78(4): 591–604
de Blaeij A, Florax R, Rietveld P, Verhoef E (2003) The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis. Accid Anal Prev 35(6): 973–986
DeShazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44(1): 123–143
Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation—is some number better than no number? J Econ Persp 8(4): 45–64
Dietz S, Stern N (2008) Symposium: the economics of climate change: the Stern Review and its critics: why economic analysis supports strong action on climate change: a response to the Stern Review’s critics. Rev Environ Econ Pol 2(1): 94–113
Florax R, Travisi CM, Nijkamp P (2005) A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. Eur Rev Agr Econ 32(4): 441–467
Flores NE (2002) Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics. J Public Econ 83(2): 293–305
Flores NE, Strong A (2007) Cost credibility and the stated preference analysis of public goods. Resour Energy Econ 29(3): 195–205
Hanley N, Grande J, Álvarez-Farizo B, Salt C, Wilson M (2001) Risk perceptions, risk-reducing behaviour and willingness to pay: radioactive contamination in food following a nuclear accident. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Glasgow
Hensher DA (2006) Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment. Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 7–44
Johnson LT (2006) Distributional preferences in contingent valuation surveys. Ecol Econ 56(4): 475–487
Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33(2): 251–265
Kelly DL, Kolstad CD, Mitchell GT (2005) Adjustment costs from environmental change. J Environ Econ Manag 50(3): 468–495
Kinnell J, Lazo JK, Epp DJ, Fisher A, Shortle JS (2002) Perceptions and values for preventing ecosystem change: Pennsylvania duck hunters and the Prairie Pothole Region. Land Econ 78(2): 228–244
Krutilla K (2005) Using the Kaldor–Hicks tableau format for cost-benefit analysis and policy evaluation. J Policy Anal Manag 24(4): 864–875
Kurukulasuriya P, Mendelsohn R, Hassan R, Benhin J, Deressa T, Diop M, Eid HM, Fosu KY, Gbetibouo G, Jain S, Mahamadou A, Mano R, Kabubo-Mariara J, El-Marsafawy S, Molua E, Ouda S, Ouedraogo M, Sene I, Maddison D, Seo SN, Dinar A (2006) Will African agriculture survive climate change? World Bank Econ Rev 20(3): 367–388
Lange A (2006) The impact of equity-preferences on the stability of international environmental agreements. Environ Resour Econ 34(2): 247–267
Lange A, Vogt C, Ziegler A (2007) On the importance of equity in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Energy Econ 29(3): 545–562
Laughland AS, Musser WN, Shortle JS, Musser LM (1996) Construct validity of averting cost measures of environmental benefits. Land Econ 72(1): 100–112
Lee JJ, Cameron TA (2008) Popular support for climate change mitigation: evidence from a general population mail survey. Environ Resour Econ 41(2): 223–248
Li H, Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Would developing country commitments affect us households’ support for a modified Kyoto Protocol? Ecol Econ 48: 329–343
Mendelsohn R (2008) Symposium: the economics of climate change: the Stern Review and its critics: is the Stern Review an economic analysis? Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(1): 45–60
Mendelsohn R, Dinar A, Williams L (2006) The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Environ Dev Econ 11: 159–178
Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16(4): 407–422
Nordhaus WD (2007) A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3): 686–702
Parks BC, Roberts JT (2006) Globalization, vulnerability to climate change, and perceived injustice. Soc Nat Resour 19(4): 337–355
Raymond L (2006) Cutting the “Gordian knot” in climate change policy. Energy Pol 34(6): 655–658
Reibstein R (2005) Ethics, equity and international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 52(4): 545–546
Rollins K (1997) Wilderness canoeing in Ontario: using cumulative results to update dichotomous choice contingent valuation offer amounts. Can J Agric Econ 45(1): 1–16
Schade C, Kunreuther H, Kaas KP (2002) Low-probability insurance decisions: the role of concern. Wharton Risk Center Working Paper Nr. 02-10-HK, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Schlapfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57(3): 415–429
Stephan G, Muller-Furstenberger G (2004) Does distribution matter? Efficiency, equity and flexibility in greenhouse gas abatement. Environ Resour Econ 27(1): 87–107
Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change: the Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, New York
Sterner T, Persson UM (2008) Symposium: the economics of climate change: The Stern Review and its critics: an even Sterner Review: introducing relative prices into the discounting debate. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(1): 61–76
Stevens TH, DeCoteau NE, Willis CE (1997) Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Econ 73(1): 140–148
Thomas DSG, Twyman C (2005) Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Glob Environ Change Human Pol Dimen 15(2): 115–124
Turner RK (2007) Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 253–269
Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77: 151–177
Weitzman ML (2007) A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3): 703–724
Weyant JP (2008) Symposium: the economics of climate change: the Stern Review and its critics: a critique of the Stern Review’s mitigation cost analyses and integrated assessment. Rev Environ Econ Pol 2(1): 77–93
Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC, Ready RC, Huang JC (1998) Construct validity of dichotomous and polychotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Environ Resour Econ 11(1): 107–116