| dc.contributor.author |
Friedman, Robert M. |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.author |
Downing, Donna |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.author |
Gunn, Elizabeth M. |
en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2009-07-31T14:50:52Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2009-07-31T14:50:52Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2000 |
en_US |
| dc.date.submitted |
2009-03-05 |
en_US |
| dc.date.submitted |
2009-03-05 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/2520 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
"The search for 'smarter' ways to prevent and control pollution has generated heated debate on almost every topic related to setting goals, improving institutional arrangements, and choosing the most effective means for achieving those goals. Given the need to balance other competing concerns, choosing the means or policy instruments to meet environmental goals can be a surprisingly complex task for decision-makers. Unfortunately, today's environmental policy toolbox contains numerous and varied instruments yet lacks a clear set of instructions for their use. Richards' article, Framing Environmental Policy Instrument Choice, proposes a new theoretical framework for choosing such instruments. He develops a taxonomy that provides the user with a list of characteristics for each policy tool, and he suggests a normative criterion for evaluating the instruments applied to a specific problem: minimize public and private costs in light of legal and political constraints." |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
environmental policy |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Environmental Policy Instrument Choice: The Challenge of Competing Goals |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Journal Article |
en_US |
| dc.type.published |
published |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
General & Multiple Resources |
en_US |
| dc.subject.sector |
Global Commons |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationjournal |
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationvolume |
10 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationnumber |
2 |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.citationmonth |
January |
en_US |