Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection: Can We Trust the “Magic Carpet”?
Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection: Can We Trust the “Magic Carpet”?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0192512199202004
复制
发表时间：
1999-04
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
H. Bressers;D. Huitema
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Bressers;D. Huitema
作为环境政策的工具，经济手段起初似乎是代替规章的一种有希望的选择。因为他们让市场力量为可持续社会的目标而工作，他们经常被描绘成以低得多的成本实现目标。从这个意义上说，经济手段似乎是可持续发展之旅的一种“魔毯”。文章提出了“飞行前检查”的地毯的可行性，并发现了几个潜在的设计问题。经济工具在实践中往往不符合基本的经济理论。此外，占主导地位的成本效益概念只是决策者在现实世界中必须考虑的众多标准之一。这不是“好的科学”与“坏的政治”的问题，而是承认政治有其自身的合理性。因此，从决策和执行的分析中吸取的经验教训应与预先假定的主要目标群体的行为反应同等重视。需要考虑的问题包括有关行为者的利益，以及政策制定和政策学习的体制背景。这些因素是通过使用它们来阐明在仪器设计中观察到的偏差来讨论的。
Economic instruments appear at first to be a promising alternative to regulations as instruments of environmental policy. Because they put market forces to work for the goal of a sustainable society, they are often portrayed as achieving goals at much lower costs. In this sense, economic instruments appear as a type of “magic carpet” for the trip to sustainable development. The article presents a “pre-flight check” of the carpet’s viability, and finds several potential design problems. Economic instruments in practice often don’t comply with the underlying economic theory. Further, the dominating notion of cost-effectiveness is only one of many criteria which policy-makers must taken into account in the real world. It is not a question of “good science” vs. “bad politics,” but a recognition that politics has a rationality of its own. The lessons learned from analyses of policy-making and implementation deserve, therefore, equal attention with the presupposed behavioral reactions of key target groups. Issues to be taken into account include the interests of the actors involved, and the institutional contexts of both policy-making and policy-learning. Such factors are discussed by using them to shed light on observed deviations in instrument design.