Policy mix: mess or merit?

被引:74
作者
Bouma, J. A. [1 ]
Verbraak, M. [1 ,5 ]
Dietz, F. [1 ]
Brouwer, R. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] PBL Netherlands Environm Assessment Agcy, POB 30314, NL-2500 GH The Hague, Netherlands
[2] Univ Waterloo, Dept Econ, Waterloo, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Waterloo, Water Inst, Waterloo, ON, Canada
[4] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Inst Environm Studies IVM, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] Argumentenfabriek, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Policy mix; policy instruments; policy evaluation; market failure; policy design; behavioural factors; experimental methods; environmental policy; EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME; ENVIRONMENTAL-POLICY; CONTRACT DESIGN; CLIMATE POLICY; BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; INSTRUMENT CHOICE; FIELD EXPERIMENTS; ENERGY; INNOVATION;
D O I
10.1080/21606544.2018.1494636
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Many researchers and policy makers have called for optimal policy mixes to address major issues such as climate change and biodiversity conservation. This paper i) screens and reviews the wider academic literature to define the concept of policy mixes; ii) discusses the justifications for using a policymix and iii) explores the methodologies for evaluating them. In defining a policymix we distinguish between policy objective mixes and policy instrument mixes. Justifications for policy objective mixes generally lie in the domain of distributional concerns and other political issues, whereas justifications for policy instrument mixes are mostly related to specific market, governance or behavioural failures. We reflect on the different justifications and discuss their role in policy mix design and evaluation. We consider the challenges of policy mix evaluation and discuss the potential of experimental methods for policy evaluation and design. We conclude that the design and evaluation of policy mixes requires a mix of methods, since no single method can effectively assess the various welfare impacts of different policy instruments. In addition, we recommend that a policymix evaluation starts by disentangling the different policy objectives, means and instruments in order to be able to define, justify and assess the societal impact and cost-effectiveness of policy instrument design.
引用
收藏
页码:32 / 47
页数:16
相关论文
共 120 条
[1]   The Environment and Directed Technical Change [J].
Acemoglu, Daron ;
Aghion, Philippe ;
Bursztyn, Leonardo ;
Hemous, David .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2012, 102 (01) :131-166
[2]   Green taxes: Refunding rules and lobbying [J].
Aidt, Toke S. .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2010, 60 (01) :31-43
[3]   Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy [J].
Aidt, TS .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 1998, 69 (01) :1-16
[4]   Designing Climate Mitigation Policy [J].
Aldy, Joseph E. ;
Krupnick, Alan J. ;
Newell, Richard G. ;
Parry, Ian W. H. ;
Pizer, William A. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, 2010, 48 (04) :903-934
[5]   The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation [J].
Allcott, Hunt ;
Rogers, Todd .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2014, 104 (10) :3003-3037
[6]   Optimal portfolio design to reduce climate-related conservation uncertainty in the Prairie Pothole Region [J].
Ando, Amy W. ;
Mallory, Mindy L. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2012, 109 (17) :6484-6489
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2015, SPRU WORKING PAPER S
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2007, Instrument Mixes for Environmental Policy
[9]  
Arrow KJ, 1969, The analysis and evaluation of public expenditures: The PPB system, joint economic committee compendium, 91st congress, 1st session, V1, P59
[10]  
Barton D.N., 2010, 12010 POLICY MIX