هزینه های معاملات از سیاست های گازهای گلخانه ای جایگزین در بخش انرژی و حمل و نقل استرالیا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|17967||2013||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Ecological Economics, Volume 88, April 2013, Pages 214–221
This study employs a comparative analysis of the transaction costs of alternative policy instruments. The institutional approach to the allocation of resources is emerging to supplement traditional analyses of market and government failures. The causes of these failures are many, but often point to high transaction costs that result largely from institutional impediments. Effective institutions can help reduce transaction costs through more effective signals and incentives, including information generation, to help markets function more efficiently and policies to be delivered more successfully. The study, which contributes to transaction costs measurement, finds that the magnitudes and types of transaction costs associated with setting up and implementing three greenhouse gas reduction policy programs in Australia are substantial and different. The estimated transaction costs of the Tradable Permit and Fee System are relatively high compared to those of the mandatory Fuel Label Program and the voluntary Fuel Efficiency Program, which supports the view that market-based policies can also be costly to deliver. Notwithstanding, transaction costs have frequently been ignored in cost–benefit analyses. It is concluded that transaction costs need to be considered alongside other costs and benefits in the assessment of policies.
Concern for the impacts of climate change poses a global challenge for governments, requiring a range of alternative policy instruments. In this context, greenhouse gas emissions associated with environmental and natural resource use, such as the production and use of energy, can be regarded as a type of market failure (Tietenberg, 2007). The greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere are a ‘public bad’, which exhibits the characteristic of non-excludability. Ill-defined property rights to the atmosphere will promote inefficient allocation of resources (Anderson, 2004). Good governance and strong property rights institutions can help reduce the transaction costs associated with the formulation and implementation process of policies designed to overcome market failure in the use of the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas sink (Williamson, 2000 and Wills, 2006). In this context, the extent of transaction costs that are induced by policy change or new policies is important for assessing the relative efficiency of alternative policies.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper makes a contribution to the literature on transaction costs, specifically transaction costs measurement. The paper presents estimates of transaction costs for three types of policies in the Australian transport energy sector: a mandatory fuel label program, a voluntary fuel efficiency program and a hypothetical market-based program. The information was obtained from surveys, interviews and secondary data. One of the key findings is that the transaction costs per emission reduction of the market-based program are considerably higher than for the other two programs, with an estimate of $7.2/tCO2-e. This suggests that transaction costs could be a considerable obstacle to implementation at current carbon prices. Cacho et al. (this issue) find that transaction costs hinder the development of carbon offset projects in the land-use sector. These findings make a case for transaction costs to be considered alongside other costs, as well as benefits, in policy decision making.