Distance to Hazard: an Environmental Policy with Income Heterogeneity

Nakada, Minoru (2016): Distance to Hazard: an Environmental Policy with Income Heterogeneity. Published in: Environmental and Development Economics , Vol. 22, (February 2017): pp. 51-65.

Abstract

This study examines whether voting by individuals of different income levels affects the stringency of environmental policy if their residential proximity to a pollution source is considered. A location model with heterogeneous agents is extended to include a single environmentally hazardous site at the edge of a linear city and the degree of damage from pollution is assumed to depend on the distance from this emissions site. The analysis demonstrates through majority voting that the equilibrium emissions tax rate is higher when the income level of the median voter is lower, because residents with low incomes reside near the hazardous site and thus benefit more from pollution abatement than residents with higher incomes.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Environmental Taxation, Majority Voting, Residential Choices, Income Heterogeneity
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior; H - Public Economics > H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue > H23 - Externalities ; Redistributive Effects ; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q52 - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs ; Distributional Effects ; Employment Effects; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes

References

Becker, S.G. and Tomes, N. (1979), An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility, Journal of Political Economy 87(6): 1153–1189.

Bellettini, G. and Hubert, K. (2013), Why not in your backyard? On the location and size of a public facility, Regional Science and Urban Economics 43(1): 22–30.

Boyle, M.A. and Kiel, K.A. (2001), A survey of house price hedonic studies of the impact of environmental externalities, Journal of Real Estate Literature 9(2): 117–144.

Brasington, D.M. and Hite, D. (2005), Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis, Regional Science and Urban Economics 35(1): 57–82.

Brooks, N. and Sethi, R. (1997), The distribution of pollution: community characteristics and exposure to air toxics, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(2): 233–250.

Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.D., and d'Arge, R.C. (1982), Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches, American Economic Review 72(1): 165–177.

Brueckner, J.K. and Selod, H. (2006), The political economy of urban transport-system choice, Journal of Public Economics 90(6–7): 983–1005.

Brueckner, J.K., Thisse, J.F., and Zenou, Y. (1999), Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor? An amenity-based theory, European Economic Review 43(1): 91–107.

Brueckner, J.K., Thisse, J.F., and Zenou, Y. (2002), Local labor markets, job matching and urban location, International Economic Review 43(1): 155–171.

Farber, S. (1998), Undesirable facilities and property values: a summary of empirical studies, Ecological Economics 24(1): 1–14.

Fujita, M. (1989), Urban Economic Theory: land use and city size, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gayer, T., Hamilton, J.T., and Viscusi, W.K. (2000), Private values of risk tradeoffs at superfund sites: housing market evidence on learning about risk, Review of Economics and Statistics 82(3): 439–451.

Hotte, L. and Winer, S.L. (2012), Environmental regulation and trade openness in the presence of private mitigation, Journal of Development Economics 97: 46–57.

Kahn, M.E. and Matsusaka, J.G. (1997), Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives, Journal of Law and Economics 40(1): 137–174.

McAusland, C. (2003), Voting for pollution policy: the importance of income inequality and openness to trade, Journal of International Economics 61(2): 425–451.

McConnell, K.E. (1997), Income and the demand for environmental quality, Environment and Development Economics 2(4): 383–399.

Neidell, M.J. (2004), Air pollution, health, and socio-economic status: the effect of outdoor air quality on childhood asthma, Journal of Health Economics 23(6): 1209–1236.

Tiebout, C.M. (1956), A pure theory of local expenditures, Journal of Political Economy 64(5): 416–424.