Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gtgcz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-23T23:35:44.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sustainable development with stock pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2009

WERNER HEDIGER
WERNER HEDIGER*
Affiliation:
Bern University of Applied Sciences, Swiss College of Agriculture, Laenggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland. Email: werner.hediger@bfh.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Optimal pollution control is an important challenge for sustainable development with three distinct cases. First, the situation where nature's assimilative capacity is completely destroyed involves normative problems that require further research. Second, environmental restoration with initial pollution above the steady-state stock requires an economy to initially allocate a relatively high share of its resources to cleaning-up activities. In return, this generally results in an intertemporally efficient development path that is both environmentally and economically sustainable. Third, optimal trajectories in situations with initial stocks of pollution below the long-term optimum generally imply an increase in pollution and a decline of optimal consumption. In this case, the investment of the environmental rents accruing from nature's assimilative capacity into man-made capital is required in analogy to the famous Hartwick rule to maintain a constant flow of instantaneous welfare. This would facilitate growth in consumption sufficient to compensate for the rising disutility of pollution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , December 2009 , pp. 759 - 780
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Azar, C. (1995), ‘Long-term environmental problems—economic measures and physical indicators’, Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Barbier, E.B. and Markandya, A. (1990), ‘The conditions for achieving environmentally sustainable development’, European Economic Review 34: 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, R.A. (1982), ‘Intergenerational equity: the capital environment trade-off’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 9: 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cesar, H. and de Zeeuw, A. (1995), ‘Sustainability and the greenhouse effect: robustness analysis of the assimilation function’, in Carraro, C. and Filar, J. (eds), Control and Game Theoretical Models of the Environment, Boston, Basel, Berlin: Birkhäuser, pp. 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevé, M. (2000), ‘Irreversibility of pollution accumulation: new implications for sustainable endogenous growth’, Environmental and Resource Economics 16: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiang, A.C. (1984), Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics, 3rd ed., Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. (1977), ‘Economic development and efficiency criteria in the satisfaction of basic needs’, Applied Mathematical Modelling 1: 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. (1996), ‘An axiomatic approach to sustainable development’, Social Choice and Welfare 13: 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. (1997), ‘What is sustainable development?’, Land Economics 73: 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Common, M. and Perrings, C. (1992), ‘Toward an ecological economics of sustainability’, Ecological Economics 6: 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, H.E. (1972), ‘In defense of a steady-state economy’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54: 945–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, H.E. (1974), ‘The economics of the steady state’, American Economic Review 64: 15–21.Google Scholar
Daly, H.E. (1991) Steady-State Economics, 2nd ed. (with new essays), Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, D. and Yarrow, G. (1977), ‘The limits of cost-benefit analysis as a guide to environmental policy: a comment’, Kyklos 30: 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1994), ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen natürlicher Selbstreinigungsprozesse in Wasserressourcen’, Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 17: 323–355 (in German).Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1997), ‘The conditions for ecological sustainable development in the context of a double-limited selfpurification model of an aggregate water resource’, Environmental and Resource Economics 9: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, B.A. (1975), ‘Optimal pollution control with a nonconstant exponential rate of decay’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, B.A. (1977), ‘On a one state variable optimal control problem: consumption-pollution trade-offs’, in Pitchford, J.D. and Turnovsky, S.J. (eds), Applications of Control Theory to Economic Analysis, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland, pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
Hartwick, J.M. (1977), ‘Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources’, American Economic Review 67: 972–974.Google Scholar
Hartwick, J.M. (1997), ‘Paying down the environmental debt’, Land Economics 73: 508–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heal, G. (2000), Valuing the Future, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hediger, W. (1999), ‘Reconciling “weak” and “strong” sustainability’, International Journal of Social Economics 26: 1120–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hediger, W. (2000), ‘Sustainable development and social welfare’, Ecological Economics 32: 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hediger, W. (2006), ‘Weak and strong sustainability, environmental conservation and economic growth’, Natural Resource Modeling 19: 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeler, E., Spence, M., and Zeckhauser, R. (1972), ‘The optimal control of pollution’, Journal of Economic Theory 4: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2003), Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. (1976), ‘The limits of cost-benefit analysis as a guide to environmental policy’, Kyklos 29: 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D.W., Atkinson, G.D., and Dubourg, W.R. (1994), ‘The economics of sustainable development’, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 19: 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pezzey, J.C.V. (1996), ‘An analysis of scientific and economic studies of pollution assimilation’, Working Paper 1996/7, Center for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Plourde, C.G. (1972), ‘A model of waste accumulation and disposal’, Canadian Journal of Economics 5: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, R.M. (1974), ‘Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources’, Review of Economic Studies (Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resources) 14: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stollery, K. (1998), ‘Constant utility paths and irreversible global warming’, Canadian Journal of Economics 31: 730–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahvonen, O. and Withagen, C. (1996), ‘Optimality of irreversible pollution accumulation’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 20: 1175–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R.K., Doktor, P., and Adger, N. (1994), ‘Sea-level rise and coastal wetlands in the U.K.: mitigation strategies for sustainable management’, in Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., and Costanza, R. (eds), Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 267–290.Google Scholar
Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., and Dokken, D.J. (eds) (2000), Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (A special report of the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar