Regulating a Common-Pool Resource when Extraction Costs Are Heterogeneous: Tax versus Quotas

dc.contributor.authorAmbec, Stefanen_US
dc.contributor.authorSebi, Carineen_US
dc.coverage.regionEuropeen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-31T14:43:59Z
dc.date.available2009-07-31T14:43:59Z
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-05-16en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-05-16en_US
dc.description.abstract"We examine the choice of instrument to regulate a common pool resource, e.g. a fishery, previously extracted under free access. The fishermen have heterogeneous extraction costs. The goal of the regulation is to reduce the total extraction effort. It must be accepted by all fishermen in the sense that they must be better-off with the regulation than under free-access. We compare the efficiency of two regulatory instruments: a tax/ subsidy scheme (an access fee for the fishery and a subsidy for those who stop fishing) and uniform (and non-transferable) quotas. "In this set-up, the first-best management of the resource requires to exclude the less efficient fishermen. It can be achieved with the taxation scheme but not with uniform quota. Yet the taxation scheme that implements the first-best might not be accepted by some fishermen and/or not be budget balanced. A uniform quota might be more easily accepted by fishermen. "We first derive necessary conditions for the implementation of the first-best management of the resource with an acceptable and budget balanced taxation scheme. We then characterize the second-best taxation regulation under the constraint that it must be accepted by all fishermen and budget balanced. Due to the above constraints, it implements a higher extraction rate than the first-best. "Next, we provide necessary conditions for the acceptability of a uniform quota. We find that a uniform quota benefits more to less efficient fishermen. In particular, despite an increase of average revenue, most efficient fishermen might be worse off than under free access, thereby refusing the regulation. "Last, we compare the efficiency of the two instruments under the constraint of acceptability. Our analysis highlights that, due to the acceptability constraint, a higher reduction of fishing effort might be achieved under uniform quotas than under a taxation scheme at the cost of including less efficient fishermen."en_US
dc.identifier.citationconfdatesMarch 23-25en_US
dc.identifier.citationconferenceBuilding the European Commons: From Open Fields to Open Source, European Regional Meeting of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP)en_US
dc.identifier.citationconflocBrescia, Italyen_US
dc.identifier.citationmonthMarchen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10535/2271
dc.subjectIASCen_US
dc.subjectcommon pool resourcesen_US
dc.subjectfisheriesen_US
dc.subjectregulationen_US
dc.subjectquotasen_US
dc.subjectuser feesen_US
dc.subjectresource managementen_US
dc.subject.sectorTheoryen_US
dc.subject.sectorFisheriesen_US
dc.submitter.emailyinjin@indiana.eduen_US
dc.titleRegulating a Common-Pool Resource when Extraction Costs Are Heterogeneous: Tax versus Quotasen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Ambec-Sebi.pdf
Size:
273.36 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections