Abstract
Environmental regulators often have imperfect information about regulated firms’ abatement costs. In this paper we compare taxes and emissions permits in a dynamic setting in which firms behave strategically. The regulator updates policy over time based upon previous aggregate industry performance, assuming that firms are not strategic. We find that strategic firms facing an emissions tax have an incentive to overabate in order to obtain a lower tax in the future. Firms that trade emissions permits have a strategic incentive to reveal an artificially high permit price to obtain more permits in the future. Whether permits or taxes are preferred from a welfare standpoint depends upon how permit prices are determined. Taxes generate higher welfare when the low-cost firm sets the permit price but permits generate higher welfare when the high-cost firm sets the permit price.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
