Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:33:55.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Can Laboratory Experiments Teach Us About Emissions Permit Market Design?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Timothy N. Cason
Timothy N. Cason*
Affiliation:
Vernon Smith Experimental Economics Laboratory at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The laboratory provides a test bed to inform many design choices for emissions permit markets. Experiments are sometimes strongly motivated and structured by specific theoretical models and predictions, but in other cases the experiment itself can be the model of the market and regulatory environment. We review specific experimental applications that address design issues for permit auction rules, permit expiration dates and banking, liability rules, and regulatory enforcement.

Keywords

cap-and-tradeauctionsliabilityregulationcompliancebanking
Type
Invited Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 151 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., and Gangadharan, L. 2009. “Subject Pool Effects in a Corruption Experiment: A Comparison of Indonesian Public Servants and Indonesian Students.” Experimental Economics 12(1): 113–132.Google Scholar
Alm, J. 1999. “Tax Compliance and Administration.” In Bartley Hildreth, W. and Richardson, J.A., eds., Handbook on Taxation. New York: Mercel Dekker.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., and Sugden, R. 2009. Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, P., and Carlén, B. 1999. “Emission Quota Trade Among the Few: Laboratory Evidence of Joint Implementation Among Committed Countries.” Resource and Energy Economics 21(1): 43–66.Google Scholar
Carlson, D., Forman, C., Olmstead, N., Ledyard, J., Plott, C., Porter, D., and Sholtz, A. 1993. “An Analysis and Recommendation for the Terms of the RECLAIM Trading Credit.” Technical report, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA.Google Scholar
Cason, T. 1993. “Seller Incentive Properties of EPA's Emission Trading Auction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(2): 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T. 1995. “An Experimental Investigation of the Seller Incentives in EPA's Emission Trading Auction.” American Economic Review 85(4): 905–922.Google Scholar
Cason, T. 2003. “Buyer Liability and Voluntary Inspections in International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading: A Laboratory Study.” Environmental and Resource Economics 25(1): 101–127.Google Scholar
Cason, T., and Gangadharan, L. 2006. “Emissions Variability in Tradable Permit Markets with Imperfect Enforcement and Banking.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 61(2): 199–216.Google Scholar
Cason, T., and Plott, C. 1996. “EPA's New Emissions Trading Mechanism: A Laboratory Evaluation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(2): 133–160.Google Scholar
Cherry, T., Kroll, S., and Shogren, J. (eds.). 2008. Environmental Economics, Experimental Methods. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooper, D., Kagel, J., Lo, W., and Gu, Q.L. 1999. “Gaming Against Managers in Incentive Systems: Experimental Results with Chinese Students and Chinese Managers.” American Economic Review 89(4): 781–804.Google Scholar
Ellerman, A.D., Joskow, P., Schmalensee, R., Montero, J.-P., and Bailey, E. 2000. Markets for Clean Air: The U.S. Acid Rain Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
GAO [see U.S. General Accounting Office].Google Scholar
Godby, R., and Shogren, J. 2008. “Caveat emptor Kyoto: Comparing Buyer and Seller Liability in Carbon Emissions Trading.” In Cherry, T., Kroll, S., and Shogren, J., eds., Environmental Economics, Experimental Methods. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harrison, G., and List, J. 2004. “Field Experiments.” Journal of Economic Literature 42(4): 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, R.M., and Holt, C. (eds.). 1999. Research in Experimental Economics [Vol. 7]: Emissions Permit Experiments. Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
Joskow, P., Schmalensee, R., and Bailey, E. 1998. “The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.” American Economic Review 88(4): 669–685.Google Scholar
Montgomery, W.D. 1972. “Markets in Licenses and Efficient Pollution Control Programs.” Journal of Economic Theory 5(3): 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J., and Stranlund, J. 2006. “Direct and Market Effects of Enforcing Emissions Trading Programs: An Experimental Analysis.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 61(2): 217–233.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., and Stranlund, J. 2007. “A Laboratory Investigation of Compliance Behavior under Tradable Emissions Rights: Implications for Targeted Enforcement.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53(2): 196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, G., Suter, J., and Vossler, C. 2009. “Farmers in the Laboratory: Experimental Results of an Ambient-Based Pollution Control Policy.” Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Porter, D., Rassenti, S., Shobe, W., Smith, V., and Winn, A. 2009. “The Design, Testing and Implementation of Virginia's NOx Allowance Auction.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69(2): 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, L., and Cason, T. 2009. “An Experimental Study of Affirmative and Negative Motivations for Compliance in Emissions Trading Programs.” Working paper, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Rustichini, A., Satterthwaite, M., and Williams, S. 1994. “Convergence to Efficiency in a Simple Market with Incomplete Information.” Econometrica 62(5): 1041–1063.Google Scholar
Smith, V. 1982. “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review 72(5): 923–955.Google Scholar
Smith, V. 2008. Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stranlund, J., Costello, C., and Chavez, C. 2005. “Enforcing Emissions Trading When Emissions Permits are Bankable.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 28(2): 181–204.Google Scholar
Stranlund, J., and Dhanda, K. 1999. “Endogenous Monitoring and Enforcement of a Transferable Emissions Permit System.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38(3): 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stranlund, J., Murphy, J., and Spraggon, J. 2009. “An Experimental Analysis of Compliance in Dynamic Emissions Markets: Some Preliminary Results.” Working paper, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. “Allowance Trading Offers an Opportunity to Reduce Emissions at Less Cost.” Report to the Chairman of the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar