关于通过土地使用交换和控制进行污染权交易的思考:科斯定理、科斯的土地使用寓言和熊的创新

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Lawrence W.C. Lai , Frank Lorne , Stephen N.G. Davies
{"title":"关于通过土地使用交换和控制进行污染权交易的思考:科斯定理、科斯的土地使用寓言和熊的创新","authors":"Lawrence W.C. Lai ,&nbsp;Frank Lorne ,&nbsp;Stephen N.G. Davies","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2018.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span><span>This monograph attempts to connect various versions of the Coase Theorem to </span>carbon trading<span> as a means to help ameliorate global warming and manifests their relevance to designs of land-based environmental policies<span> with reference to such established land use planning<span> tools as zoning and the transfer of development rights. These land-based policies, which are in line with the received concept of “transfer of development rights”, are demonstrably sustainable and they are easier to monitor physically than trading in greenhouse gas emissions. The discussion is in support of and articulates with the “land use, land-use change and forestry” (LULUCF) endeavours of the Kyoto Protocol and is timely, as global warming is a real </span></span></span></span>environmental issue<span>. The supposition that Coasian economics, under the spell of the false plan/market dichotomy in both the academic and the political arena, is inherently alien to sustainable development is wrong. The argument below involves four versions of Coase Theorem. Two were formulated by George Stigler based on Coase’s “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960), a treatise against Arthur Pigou’s concept of pollution. The remaining two are those that in </span></span><em>The Firm, the Market and the Law</em> Coase considered his actual theorems. The theorems are supportive of government planning rules including “transfer of development rights” (TDR) and land readjustment. Despite seeming to be restrictive quotas, they actually enable innovations that can promote sustainable development, as envisaged in Yu’s Coasian-Schumpeterian model of creative destruction (Yu et al., 2000). Standard supply and demand graphs and examples are used to demonstrate the compatibility of our reasoning with standard neoclassical economic tools.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2018.10.001","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A reflection on the trading of pollution rights via land use exchanges and controls: Coase Theorems, Coase’s land use parable, and Schumpeterian innovations\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence W.C. Lai ,&nbsp;Frank Lorne ,&nbsp;Stephen N.G. Davies\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.progress.2018.10.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span><span><span>This monograph attempts to connect various versions of the Coase Theorem to </span>carbon trading<span> as a means to help ameliorate global warming and manifests their relevance to designs of land-based environmental policies<span> with reference to such established land use planning<span> tools as zoning and the transfer of development rights. These land-based policies, which are in line with the received concept of “transfer of development rights”, are demonstrably sustainable and they are easier to monitor physically than trading in greenhouse gas emissions. The discussion is in support of and articulates with the “land use, land-use change and forestry” (LULUCF) endeavours of the Kyoto Protocol and is timely, as global warming is a real </span></span></span></span>environmental issue<span>. The supposition that Coasian economics, under the spell of the false plan/market dichotomy in both the academic and the political arena, is inherently alien to sustainable development is wrong. The argument below involves four versions of Coase Theorem. Two were formulated by George Stigler based on Coase’s “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960), a treatise against Arthur Pigou’s concept of pollution. The remaining two are those that in </span></span><em>The Firm, the Market and the Law</em> Coase considered his actual theorems. The theorems are supportive of government planning rules including “transfer of development rights” (TDR) and land readjustment. Despite seeming to be restrictive quotas, they actually enable innovations that can promote sustainable development, as envisaged in Yu’s Coasian-Schumpeterian model of creative destruction (Yu et al., 2000). Standard supply and demand graphs and examples are used to demonstrate the compatibility of our reasoning with standard neoclassical economic tools.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2018.10.001\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900618300576\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900618300576","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

本专著试图将科斯定理的不同版本与碳交易联系起来,作为一种帮助改善全球变暖的手段,并通过参考诸如分区和发展权转让等已建立的土地使用规划工具,表明它们与基于土地的环境政策设计的相关性。这些基于土地的政策符合公认的“发展权转让”概念,显然是可持续的,而且比温室气体排放交易更容易进行实际监测。这次讨论是对《京都议定书》“土地利用、土地利用变化和林业”(LULUCF)努力的支持和配合,而且是及时的,因为全球变暖是一个真正的环境问题。有人认为,在学术和政治舞台上被错误的计划/市场二分法所迷惑的科斯经济学,本质上与可持续发展格格不入,这种假设是错误的。下面的论证涉及科斯定理的四个版本。其中两个是由乔治·斯蒂格勒根据科斯的《社会成本问题》(1960)提出的,这是一篇反对阿瑟·庇古污染概念的论文。剩下的两个是科斯在《企业、市场和法律》中认为他的实际定理。这些定理支持政府的规划规则,包括“发展权转让”(TDR)和土地调整。尽管似乎是限制性的配额,但它们实际上使创新能够促进可持续发展,正如Yu的科斯-熊彼特创造性破坏模型所设想的那样(Yu et al., 2000)。标准的供给和需求图表和例子被用来证明我们的推理与标准的新古典经济工具的兼容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A reflection on the trading of pollution rights via land use exchanges and controls: Coase Theorems, Coase’s land use parable, and Schumpeterian innovations

This monograph attempts to connect various versions of the Coase Theorem to carbon trading as a means to help ameliorate global warming and manifests their relevance to designs of land-based environmental policies with reference to such established land use planning tools as zoning and the transfer of development rights. These land-based policies, which are in line with the received concept of “transfer of development rights”, are demonstrably sustainable and they are easier to monitor physically than trading in greenhouse gas emissions. The discussion is in support of and articulates with the “land use, land-use change and forestry” (LULUCF) endeavours of the Kyoto Protocol and is timely, as global warming is a real environmental issue. The supposition that Coasian economics, under the spell of the false plan/market dichotomy in both the academic and the political arena, is inherently alien to sustainable development is wrong. The argument below involves four versions of Coase Theorem. Two were formulated by George Stigler based on Coase’s “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960), a treatise against Arthur Pigou’s concept of pollution. The remaining two are those that in The Firm, the Market and the Law Coase considered his actual theorems. The theorems are supportive of government planning rules including “transfer of development rights” (TDR) and land readjustment. Despite seeming to be restrictive quotas, they actually enable innovations that can promote sustainable development, as envisaged in Yu’s Coasian-Schumpeterian model of creative destruction (Yu et al., 2000). Standard supply and demand graphs and examples are used to demonstrate the compatibility of our reasoning with standard neoclassical economic tools.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信