Voluntary Agreements About Cleaning Up Pollution Attempt To
Category : 未分类
Suppose that before regulation K, identical companies were responsible for pollution, with each company producing emissions equal to 0. With the same approach as for emissions taxes, the welfare effect of mitigation subsidies is as follows: empirical studies on voluntary overlearning are relatively recent and are beginning to increase and they advance theoretical discussions. Some articles, such as Arora and Cason (1995), examine the choice of companies to participate in voluntary government-subsidized over-compliance programs, such as the 33/50 program sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They find that companies with high toxic emissions are more likely to participate in this program. They see this result as a sign of hope, as these companies have the greatest potential to reduce emissions. A less crude instrument is the assignment of responsibility. If a polluting company were responsible for the damage caused by pollution, it would pollute until the marginal costs of the reduction exceeded the marginal damage it imposed on others and replaced the damage caused by that amount of wastewater. This solution requires clearly defined rights and the application of these rights at a lower cost. For most environmental goods, rights are not well defined and cannot be precisely defined due to the problem of incomparable bad.
Enforcement, usually through the courts, is rarely gratuitous and is not even safe due to imperfections in the judicial system (Shavell (1984)). National qualifications frameworks have been adopted by many English-speaking countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that have structured their tertiary education in a neoliberal market, such as New Zealand, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, England and Ireland. They can also be taken into account in Kintzer`s typology, as people created in New Zealand and South Africa are compulsory and more favourable to certain sectors of Scotland, Ireland and Australia (Young, 2005: 12) and almost voluntary. Some argue that a qualification framework is part of the neoliberal agenda, as it commercialises education and thus contributes “to the creation of education markets by providing a common qualification currency. This common currency is seen, like money in an economy, as an incentive for increased competition among degree providers, because all institutions recognize and reward learning in the same way” (Strathdee, 2003: 157). But even in countries that have heavily commercialized their higher education, such as New Zealand, Australia and, to a lesser extent, England, national qualifications frameworks are encouraged to minimise barriers to vertical and horizontal transfer and to “maximise access, flexibility and portability between different fields of teaching and work and different places of learning” (Young, 2003 : 224). However, there is relatively little evidence that national qualifications frameworks achieve these goals (Young, 2005: 1). Lyon and Maxwell (1999) offer several reasons for companies that have voluntarily become environmental beyond their requirements.
First, companies may be able to reduce costs by improving their environmental performance. Porter and van der Linde (1995) argue that pollution is a signal that companies are inefficient because they indicate that polluters do not derive the greatest benefit from their production practices. They propose that companies have many opportunities to improve their environmental performance while improving their profitability, and argue that companies that do not use these opportunities are driven out of their activities by companies that do. . . .