Question

Emissions Standards is one of a range of pollution control policies that follow the "command-and-control" approach. Why is this approach not generally favored by environmental economists? Hint: Would we expect such policies to achieve any form of efficiency?

Answer 1

** Please like if answer was helpful. It would mean a lot! **

The command-and control approach is not favored by environmentalist economists becasue of the following reasons:-

1. Command-and-control regulation offers no incentive to go beyond the set standards and improve the quality of the environment Once the command-and-control regulation has been satisfied, polluters do not find any incentive to do better.
2. Command-and-control regulation is not flexible. It usually requires the same set of norms and standards for all polluters, and often the same pollution-control technology as well. This means that command-and-control regulation deos not distinguish between firms that would find it easy and inexpensive to meet the pollution standard and firms that might find it difficult and costly to meet the standard. This leads to inefficiencies compared to the potential benefit that can be achieved if a distinction is made.
3. Third, command-and-control regulations are written by bureaucrats, legislators and the EPA, and so they are subject to influences and pressures exerted by political groups.. Existing firms often lobby and bypass environmental standards. Consequently, real-world environmental laws are filled with print, loopholes, and exceptions.

Although critics accept the goal of reducing pollution, they pose the question whether command-and-control regulation is the efficient and sensible way to go forward.