Regulation as a policy contest: the probability of conservation of a renewable resource
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.08(3-1).2017.01
-
Article InfoVolume 8 2017, Issue #3, pp. 92-101
- 622 Views
-
124 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
How do the levels of extreme positions of various interest groups influence the conservation policies in the context of a renewable resource conservation contest? To answer this question, a model is provided where conservation policy is determined as a contest between two opposing interest groups: one in favor of conservation and another in favor of non-conservation. The levels of extreme positions for the conservationalists are determined by their demands about the severity of the conservation strategy that needs to be implemented. For the non-conservation group, the level of extreme position is determined by how large the current harvest of the resource should be.
The main driver of the model is that resource conservation is realized only if the conservation group wins the contest, which again depends on the relative gain the two contenders receive when winning the contest. The paper derives conditions where the more extreme positioned groups will have less likelihood of succeeding, e.g., a conservation group demanding larger conservation efforts will face a reduced probability that actual conservation policies will be implemented.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)Q22, D72, L5
-
References24
-
Tables0
-
Figures5
-
- Fig. 1. The possible positions of the two competing groups
- Fig. 2. Situation where β=1
- Fig. 3. Situation where β=0
- Fig. 4. Situation where α=1
- Fig. 5. Situation where α=0
-
- Brandt, U. S., & Svendsen, G. T. (2016). The Politics of Persuasion: Should Lobbying be Regulated in the EU? Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Brandt, U. S., & Svendsen, G. T. (2009). Trawling for subsidies: the alignment of incentives between fishermen and marine biologists. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 1012-1029.
- Dijkstra, B. R. (1998). Cooperation by way of support in a Rent Seeking Contest for a Public Good. European Journal of Political Economy, 14, 703-725.
- Eerola, E. (2004). Forest conservation – too much or too little? A political economy model. Environmental and Resource Economics, 27, 391-407.
- Epstein, G. S., & Nitzan, S. (2002). Stakes and Welfare in Rent-Seeking Contests. Public Choice, 112, 137-142.
- Epstein, G. S., & Nitzan, S. (2007). Endogenous policy and contests. Berlin: Springer.
- Epstein, G. S., Nitzan, S., & Schwarz, M. E. (2008). Efforts in two-sided contests. Public Choice, 136, 283-291.
- EU (2005). European Commision: Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
- EU (2008). The Marine Strategy Framework Directive. (MSFD 2008/56/EC, EC 2008).
- Graichen, P. R., Requate, T., & Dijkstra, B. R. (2001). How to Win the Political Contest: A Monopolist vs. Environmentalists. Public Choice, 108, 273-293.
- Hovi, J., Underdahl, A., & Ward, H. (2011). Potential contribution s of political science to environmental economics. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 391-411.
- ICES (2005). ICES.
- IPCC (2014). Fifth Assessment Report, synthesis report.
- Juda, L. (2010). The European Union and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Continuing the Development of European Ocean Use Management. Ocean Development & International Law, 41, 34-54.
- Liston-Heyes, C. (2001). Setting the Stakes in Environmental Contests. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 1-12.
- Long, R. (2011). The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A New European Approach to the Regulation of the Marine Environment, Marine Natural Resources and Marine Ecological Services. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 29, 1-44.
- Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. (1993). Uncertainty, resource exploitation and conservation: Lessons from history. Science, 260, 36-37.
- Nitzan, S. (1994). Modeling Rent Seeking Contests. European Journal of Political Economy, 10, 41-60.
- Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 430.
- Richards, J. P., & Heard, J. (2005). European environmental NGOs: Issues, Resources and Strategies in the Marine Campaigns. Environmental Politics, 14, 23-41.
- Varjopuro, R., Andrulewicz, E., Blenckner, T., Dolch, T., Heiskanen, A.-S., Pihlajamäki, M., Brandt, U. S., Valman, M. , Gee, K., Potts, T., & Psuty, I. (2014). Coping with persistent environmental problems – Systemic delays in reducing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Ecology and Society, 19, 48.
- Wilen, J. E. (2000). Renewable Resource Economists and Policy: What Differences Have We Made? Journal of Environmental and Economics and Management, 39, 306-327.
- WWF (2006). A Sustainable Future for Baltic Sea Cod and Cod Fisheries. WWF Baltic Ecoregion programme, WWF, Denmark.