Command-Control Versus Market Incentive Policies for Non-point Source Pollution

Ken Bao
Abstract:This paper aims to compare the cost-effectiveness between command-control and market instruments in addressing non-point source pollution. By definition, non-point source pollution (NPSP) is extremely difficult to observe individual level discharge and thus, very hard to implement market incentive policies. Few observational studies examine the cost effectiveness of NPSP policies because it is difficult to study how individual polluters respond to pecuniary incentives to abate. I exploit a policy setting where agricultural runoff is in fact, a point source pollution but is regulated as if it were NPSP which allows the study of abatement behavior in what is typically a NPSP setting. I study a program called the Florida Everglades Forever Act intended to reduce phosphorus runoffs from entering the sensitive Everglades ecosystem. The program consists of both a command-control component as well as a market incentive component which I am able to disentangle using a new dataset I developed on annual farm level discharge and subsidies for pollution reduction. The dataset allows the use of the two-step Arellano-Bond estimator to estimate a marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve for the average farm. Using the estimated MAC curve, I simulate the costs under the market mechanism and compare that with both data-estimated and engineer-estimated costs under command-control. I find that to achieve the same benchmark pollution outcome, the market mechanism would reduce compliance cost by 20%. 1 Keywords— Non-point Source, Pollution, Agricultural Runoff, Ambient Tax, Ambient Subsidy Suggested Referees— Kathy Segerson (kathleen.segerson@uconn.edu), Jason Shogren (jramses@uwyo.edu), Till Requate (requate@economics.uni-kiel.de), Don Fullerton (dfullert@illinois.edu), Alvin Murphy (alvin.murphy@asu.edu)
Environmental Science,Economics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?