Pricing instruments in environmental and climate policy when polluters are boundedly rational.

npj climate action Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-18 DOI:10.1038/s44168-025-00284-9
Elisabeth Gsottbauer, Jeroen C J M van den Bergh
{"title":"Pricing instruments in environmental and climate policy when polluters are boundedly rational.","authors":"Elisabeth Gsottbauer, Jeroen C J M van den Bergh","doi":"10.1038/s44168-025-00284-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of pricing instruments in environmental policy has been argued to have certain advantages, notably related to static and dynamic efficiency as well as effectiveness due to economy-wide scope. This paper adopts a broad perspective to provide a complete set of arguments in favour of price-based instruments in environmental policy, illustrated for climate policy. Pricing instruments are still not used to their full potential. The reason is that there is still considerable unfounded scepticism, including by researchers in the social environmental sciences, about their functioning and performance. Different disciplines express distinct and partly inconsistent ideas on the desirability of pricing instruments. An important recent criticism is that traditional economic arguments for pricing instruments are based on rational agents and are inconsistent with findings of behavioural economics. We examine this argument by assessing how instruments behave under various realistic behavioural assumptions in line with bounded rationality and other-regarding behaviour. We find that the case is strengthened for cap-and-trade versus environmental taxation. We also discuss additional instruments to effectively counter environmental and climate challenges under bounded rationality and social interactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":519998,"journal":{"name":"npj climate action","volume":"4 1","pages":"96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"npj climate action","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00284-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of pricing instruments in environmental policy has been argued to have certain advantages, notably related to static and dynamic efficiency as well as effectiveness due to economy-wide scope. This paper adopts a broad perspective to provide a complete set of arguments in favour of price-based instruments in environmental policy, illustrated for climate policy. Pricing instruments are still not used to their full potential. The reason is that there is still considerable unfounded scepticism, including by researchers in the social environmental sciences, about their functioning and performance. Different disciplines express distinct and partly inconsistent ideas on the desirability of pricing instruments. An important recent criticism is that traditional economic arguments for pricing instruments are based on rational agents and are inconsistent with findings of behavioural economics. We examine this argument by assessing how instruments behave under various realistic behavioural assumptions in line with bounded rationality and other-regarding behaviour. We find that the case is strengthened for cap-and-trade versus environmental taxation. We also discuss additional instruments to effectively counter environmental and climate challenges under bounded rationality and social interactions.

当污染者是有限理性的时候,环境和气候政策中的定价工具。
有人认为,在环境政策中使用定价手段具有某些优势,特别是与静态和动态效率以及由于全经济范围的有效性有关。本文采用了一个广泛的视角,提供了一套完整的论据,支持环境政策中基于价格的工具,并举例说明了气候政策。定价工具仍未充分发挥其潜力。原因在于,包括社会环境科学领域的研究人员在内,对它们的功能和表现仍有相当多的毫无根据的怀疑。不同学科对定价工具的可取性表达了不同的、部分不一致的观点。最近一个重要的批评是,定价工具的传统经济学论点是基于理性主体的,与行为经济学的发现不一致。我们通过评估工具在与有限理性和其他行为一致的各种现实行为假设下的行为来检查这一论点。我们发现,与环境税相比,总量管制与交易的情况得到了加强。我们还讨论了在有限理性和社会互动下有效应对环境和气候挑战的其他工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书