{"title":"污染的制度结构:大规模外部效应与普通法","authors":"Larry Eubanks, Glenn L. Furton","doi":"10.1007/s11127-024-01172-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper revisits a long-standing discussion surrounding the efficacy of the common law versus government intervention in addressing large-scale environmental externalities. Drawing on a conceptual framework developed by James M. Buchanan, we challenge the prevailing economic orthodoxy which holds that so-called “large-number” externalities inherently necessitate government policy intervention. Instead, we argue that the common law offers a viable means of addressing both small- and large-scale environmental pollution problems. Using riparian and nuisance cases from the nineteenth and early twentieth-century as a case study, we demonstrate how common law has historically managed to resolve water pollution disputes, even in cases involving many parties. The paper expands the discussion on externalities by integrating insights from environmental and institutional economics, highlighting the role played by transaction costs, collective action, and institutional reform in the preservation of environmental resources. Our findings suggest that a more polycentric system of rules, relying more heavily on decentralized legal institutions, could offer more efficient and adaptable solutions to contemporary environmental challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":48322,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The institutional structure of pollution: large-scale externalities and the common law\",\"authors\":\"Larry Eubanks, Glenn L. Furton\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11127-024-01172-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper revisits a long-standing discussion surrounding the efficacy of the common law versus government intervention in addressing large-scale environmental externalities. Drawing on a conceptual framework developed by James M. Buchanan, we challenge the prevailing economic orthodoxy which holds that so-called “large-number” externalities inherently necessitate government policy intervention. Instead, we argue that the common law offers a viable means of addressing both small- and large-scale environmental pollution problems. Using riparian and nuisance cases from the nineteenth and early twentieth-century as a case study, we demonstrate how common law has historically managed to resolve water pollution disputes, even in cases involving many parties. The paper expands the discussion on externalities by integrating insights from environmental and institutional economics, highlighting the role played by transaction costs, collective action, and institutional reform in the preservation of environmental resources. Our findings suggest that a more polycentric system of rules, relying more heavily on decentralized legal institutions, could offer more efficient and adaptable solutions to contemporary environmental challenges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Choice\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Choice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01172-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01172-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文重新审视了长期以来围绕普通法与政府干预在解决大规模环境外部性问题上的功效所展开的讨论。根据詹姆斯-M-布坎南(James M. Buchanan)提出的概念框架,我们对认为所谓的 "大量 "外部性必然需要政府政策干预的主流经济学正统观点提出了质疑。相反,我们认为普通法为解决小型和大型环境污染问题提供了可行的手段。以十九世纪和二十世纪初的河岸和妨害案件为案例,我们展示了普通法在历史上是如何解决水污染纠纷的,即使是涉及多方当事人的案件。本文综合了环境经济学和制度经济学的观点,扩展了关于外部性的讨论,强调了交易成本、集体行动和制度改革在保护环境资源方面的作用。我们的研究结果表明,一个更加多中心的规则体系,更加依赖于分散的法律机构,可以为当代环境挑战提供更加高效和适应性更强的解决方案。
The institutional structure of pollution: large-scale externalities and the common law
This paper revisits a long-standing discussion surrounding the efficacy of the common law versus government intervention in addressing large-scale environmental externalities. Drawing on a conceptual framework developed by James M. Buchanan, we challenge the prevailing economic orthodoxy which holds that so-called “large-number” externalities inherently necessitate government policy intervention. Instead, we argue that the common law offers a viable means of addressing both small- and large-scale environmental pollution problems. Using riparian and nuisance cases from the nineteenth and early twentieth-century as a case study, we demonstrate how common law has historically managed to resolve water pollution disputes, even in cases involving many parties. The paper expands the discussion on externalities by integrating insights from environmental and institutional economics, highlighting the role played by transaction costs, collective action, and institutional reform in the preservation of environmental resources. Our findings suggest that a more polycentric system of rules, relying more heavily on decentralized legal institutions, could offer more efficient and adaptable solutions to contemporary environmental challenges.
期刊介绍:
Public Choice deals with the intersection between economics and political science. The journal was founded at a time when economists and political scientists became interested in the application of essentially economic methods to problems normally dealt with by political scientists. It has always retained strong traces of economic methodology, but new and fruitful techniques have been developed which are not recognizable by economists. Public Choice therefore remains central in its chosen role of introducing the two groups to each other, and allowing them to explain themselves through the medium of its pages.
Officially cited as: Public Choice