Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:11:39.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Site collectif polluant et monopole: localisation et tarification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Get access

Résumé

Un groupe d'agents décide de mettre à sa disposition un site collectif polluant. Pour ce faire, ils font appel à une entreprise chargée de la localisation et de la construction de l'installation. Celle-ci leur propose une procédure de localisation/tarification soumise à l'approbation de tous les agents. Dans un tel contexte, l'entreprise est forcée à internaliser les dommages subis par les agents dans sa fonction de coût: ce phénomène rappelle l'achat de droit à polluer. En information incomplète, les mécanismes incitatifs optimaux indiquent l'existence d'inefficacités dues à l'attribution d'une rente informationnelle à chaque agent: la localisation échoue alors qu'elle aurait profité à tout le monde. Dans deux applications (externalités diffuses et ex-ternalités locales) du modèle général, l'enchère optimale est complètement caractérisée.

Summary

Summary

A community of agents decide to provide itself with a noxious facility. To do so, they call on a firm that will be in charge of the siting and the construction of the facility. In such a context, the firm propose a siting/pricing mechanism to the community. Under incomplete information, we show that optimal mechanisms facilitating the siting and pricing of the facility exhibit allocative inefficiencies due to the informational rent given to each agents. In two cases drawn from the general cases (diffuse extenailities and local externalities), we fully characterize the optimal auction.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2004 

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.)

Footnotes

*

CRESE, Université de Besançon, UFR SJEPG, 45 D, Avenue de I'Observatoire, 25030 Besançon cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected]

References

Bibliographie

Amey, R.G., Albrecht, S.L. et Amir, S. (1997), “Low-Level Radiactive Waste : Policy Failure, Regional Failure”, Regional sciences, 31, pp.620630.Google Scholar
Armstrong, M. (1996), “Multiproduct Nonlinear Pricing”, Econometrica, 64, pp.5175.Google Scholar
Bacot, H., Bowen, T. et Fitzgerald, M. (1994), “Managing the Solid Waste Crisis : Exploring the Link between Citizen Attitudes, Policy Incentives, and Siting Landfills”, Policy Studies Journal, 22(2), pp.229244.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B.D. et Whinston, M. (1986), “Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, and Economic Influence”, Quaterly Journal of Economics, 101, pp. 133.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1965), “An Economic Theory of Clubs”, Economica, vol.32, 1.Google Scholar
Clarke, F. (1971), “Multipart Pricing of Public Goods”, Public Choice, 11, pp.1733.Google Scholar
Groves, T. (1973), “Incentives in Team”, Econometrica, 41, pp.617631.Google Scholar
Jehiel, P., Moldovanu, B. et Stacchetti, E. (1997), Multidimensional Mechanism Design for Auctions with Externalities, mimeo, Universitat of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Jehiel, P., Moldovanu, B. et Stacchetti, E. (1999), “Multidimensional Mechanism Design for Auctions with Externalities”, Journal of Economic Theory, 85, pp.258293.Google Scholar
Kleindorfer, P.R. et Kunreuther, H.C. (1986), “A Sealed-Bid Auction Mechanism for Siting Noxious Facilities”, American Economic Review, mimeo, pp.295299.Google Scholar
Kleindorfer, P.R. et Sertel, M.R. (1994), “Auctioning the Provision of an Indivisible Public Good”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol.64, pp.2034.Google Scholar
Krishna, V. et Perry, M. (1997), Efficient Mechanism Design, mimeo, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., Kleindorfer, P. Knez, P. et Yaksick, R. (1987), “A Compensation Mechanism for Siting Noxious Facilities : Theory and Experimental Design”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14, pp.371383.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H. et Easterling, D. (1996), “The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol.15, 4, pp.601622.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H., Linnerooth, J. et Fitzgerald, K. (1996), “Siting Hazardous Facilities : Lessons from Europe and America”, in Kleindorfer, P. Kunreuther, H. et Hong, D. (eds.), Environment and the Economy : Asian Perspectives, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Laussel, D. et Le Breton, M. (1998), “Efficient Private Production of Public Goods under Common Agency”, Games and Economic Behavior, 22, pp.194218.Google Scholar
Lescop, D. (2000), Enchères et Externalités : Applications à la Localisation des Biens Collectifs, Thèse pour le Doctorat en Sciences Économiques, Université de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
Martimort, D. (1992), « Multiprincipaux avec Anti-Sélection », Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 28, pp. 137.Google Scholar
Myerson, R.B. (1981), “Optimal Auction Design”, Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 6, pp.5873.Google Scholar
Pesendorfer, M. (1998), “Pollution Claim Settlements under Correlated Information”, Journal of Economic Theory, 79, pp.72105.Google Scholar
Rob, R. (1989), “Pollution Claim Settlements under Private Information”, Journal of Economic Theory, 47, pp.307333.Google Scholar
Rochet, J.C. (1985), “The Taxation Principle and Multitime Hamilton-Jacobi Equations”, Journal of Mathematical Economics, 14, pp.93128.Google Scholar
Rockafellar, T., (1970), Convex Analysis, Princeton, New Jersey : Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vickrey, W. (1961), “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders”, Journal of Finance, 16, pp.837.Google Scholar