Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy

We examine the extent to which various environmental policy instruments meet major evaluation criteria, including cost-effectiveness, distributional equity, minimization of risk in the presence of uncertainty, and political feasibility. Instruments considered include emissions taxes, tradable emissions allowances, subsidies for emissions reductions, performance standards, technology mandates, and research and development subsidies. Several themes emerge. First, no single instrument is clearly superior along all the criteria. Second, significant trade-offs arise in the choice of instrument; for example, assuring a reasonable degree of distributional equity often will require a sacrifice of cost-effectiveness. Third, it is possible and sometimes desirable to design hybrid instruments that combine features of various instruments in their “pure” form. Fourth, for many pollution problems, more than one market failure may be involved, which may justify (on efficiency grounds, at least) employing more than one instrument. Finally, potential overlaps and undesirable interactions among environmental policy instruments are sometimes a matter of concern.emissions control instruments, cost-effectiveness, distributional burden, induced innovation

Patent Auctions

In advancing his prospect theory of patents, Edmund Kitch dismissed the possibility of distributing rights to particular inventions through an auction, arguing that the patent system avoids the need for governmental officials to define the boundaries of inventions that have not yet been created. Auctions for patent rights to entire inventive fields, however, might accentuate the benefits of a prospect approach, by allowing for earlier and broader patents. Auction designs that award the patent to the bidder that commits the most money to research and development or that agrees to charge the lowest price, meanwhile, can reduce the costs of prospect approach. Concerns about the government’s ability to decide correctly when to hold auctions, however, provide an uneasy case for patent races over patent auctions. More modest uses of auctions might improve welfare. For example, an auction to a small number of parties of the right to race in a technological field might reduce wasteful duplication and thus accelerate innovation. Similarly, patentees might be allowed to demand auctions for extended patent scope, with the caveat that a patentee would need to substantially outbid others to win such an auction

The Uneasy Case for Patent Races Over Auctions

In advancing his prospect theory of patents, Edmund Kitch dismissed the possibility of distributing rights to particular inventions through auctions, arguing that the patent system avoids the need for governmental officials to define the boundaries of inventions that have not yet been created. Auctions for patent rights to entire inventive fields, however, might accentuate the benefits of a prospect approach, by allowing for earlier and broader patents. Auction designs that award the patent to the bidder that commits the most money to research and development or that agrees to charge the lowest price, meanwhile, can reduce the costs of the prospect approach. Concerns about the government\u27s ability to decide correctly when to hold auctions, however, provide an uneasy case for patent races over patent auctions. More modest uses of auctions might improve welfare, though. For example, an auction to a small number of parties of the right to race in a technological field might reduce wasteful duplication and thus accelerate innovation. Similarly, patentees might be allowed to demand auctions for extended patent scope, with the caveat that a patentee would need to outbid others by a substantial amount to win such an auction

Patent Auctions

In his famous paper advancing a prospect theory of patents, Edmund Kitch found inspiration in, but quickly dismissed, a footnote authored by Yoram Barzel suggesting that rights to inventions might be distributed through an auction mechanism. Kitch maintained that the patent system itself achieves the benefit of an auction by giving control over the inventive process at a relatively early stage. The patent system, moreover, avoids the need for governmental officials in an auction regime to define the boundaries of inventions that have not yet been created. Patent auctions, however, may be more appealing if the auctions are for rights to inventive fields, rather than to specific inventions. Indeed, an auction system may be seen as an extreme version of the prospect theory approach, by allowing patents to be issued at an earlier stage and with broader scope than is feasible in a conventional patent system. Like prospects generally, auctions could help avoid the costs associated with duplicative patent races and with inventing around existing patents. An additional advantage of auctions is that variations in the design of the auction mechanism can help respond to specific concerns about the prospect approach. For example, an auction awarding a patent to the party that agrees to commit the most resources to a particular technological field may alleviate concerns that the prospect approach could stifle rather than stimulate innovation. Similarly, to mitigate concerns about deadweight loss, the government could sponsor an auction in which the field is awarded to the party that, in addition to paying a set amount of cash, agrees to charge the lowest price or hold the patent for the shortest term. The analysis, however, identifies a number of empirical uncertainties that together provide an uneasy case for the status quo. A principal problem is that there exists a fundamental tradeoff in auction design, between approaches that maximize the auction winner\u27s incentive to develop inventions within the scope of the patent grant and approaches that most effectively reduce deadweight loss. There is no guarantee that the government would optimally resolve these tradeoffs ex ante. Although governmental officials ex post could compare bids that offer combinations of commitments to development and concessions on price, this approach too is prone to error. The government also faces a daunting informational task in determining when to hold a patent auction. The danger of governmental errors suggests that if patent auctions are to have any place in our innovation policy, they must avoid governmental discretion in determining when auctions should occur and in identifying the most attractive bidders. An ambitious approach might be to use information markets to make both such determinations, though it may be too early in the history of information markets to assess whether they are up to the task. A more modest approach would allow patentees to demand auctions that would provide additional patent scope, with the caveat that a patentee would need to substantially outbid others to win such an auction, and failing victory would be fined

Patent Auctions

In his famous paper advancing a prospect theory of patents, Edmund Kitch found inspiration in, but quickly dismissed, a footnote authored by Yoram Barzel suggesting that rights to inventions might be distributed through an auction mechanism. Kitch maintained that the patent system itself achieves the benefit of an auction by giving control over the inventive process at a relatively early stage. The patent system, moreover, avoids the need for governmental officials in an auction regime to define the boundaries of inventions that have not yet been created. Patent auctions, however, may be more appealing if the auctions are for rights to inventive fields, rather than to specific inventions. Indeed, an auction system may be seen as an extreme version of the prospect theory approach, by allowing patents to be issued at an earlier stage and with broader scope than is feasible in a conventional patent system. Like prospects generally, auctions could help avoid the costs associated with duplicative patent races and with inventing around existing patents. An additional advantage of auctions is that variations in the design of the auction mechanism can help respond to specific concerns about the prospect approach. For example, an auction awarding a patent to the party that agrees to commit the most resources to a particular technological field may alleviate concerns that the prospect approach could stifle rather than stimulate innovation. Similarly, to mitigate concerns about deadweight loss, the government could sponsor an auction in which the field is awarded to the party that, in addition to paying a set amount of cash, agrees to charge the lowest price or hold the patent for the shortest term. The analysis, however, identifies a number of empirical uncertainties that together provide an uneasy case for the status quo. A principal problem is that there exists a fundamental tradeoff in auction design, between approaches that maximize the auction winner\u27s incentive to develop inventions within the scope of the patent grant and approaches that most effectively reduce deadweight loss. There is no guarantee that the government would optimally resolve these tradeoffs ex ante. Although governmental officials ex post could compare bids that offer combinations of commitments to development and concessions on price, this approach too is prone to error. The government also faces a daunting informational task in determining when to hold a patent auction. The danger of governmental errors suggests that if patent auctions are to have any place in our innovation policy, they must avoid governmental discretion in determining when auctions should occur and in identifying the most attractive bidders. An ambitious approach might be to use information markets to make both such determinations, though it may be too early in the history of information markets to assess whether they are up to the task. A more modest approach would allow patentees to demand auctions that would provide additional patent scope, with the caveat that a patentee would need to substantially outbid others to win such an auction, and failing victory would be fined

The Uneasy Case for Patent Races Over Auctions

In advancing his prospect theory of patents, Edmund Kitch dismissed the possibility of distributing rights to particular inventions through auctions, arguing that the patent system avoids the need for governmental officials to define the boundaries of inventions that have not yet been created. Auctions for patent rights to entire inventive fields, however, might accentuate the benefits of a prospect approach, by allowing for earlier and broader patents. Auction designs that award the patent to the bidder that commits the most money to research and development or that agrees to charge the lowest price, meanwhile, can reduce the costs of the prospect approach. Concerns about the government\u27s ability to decide correctly when to hold auctions, however, provide an uneasy case for patent races over patent auctions. More modest uses of auctions might improve welfare, though. For example, an auction to a small number of parties of the right to race in a technological field might reduce wasteful duplication and thus accelerate innovation. Similarly, patentees might be allowed to demand auctions for extended patent scope, with the caveat that a patentee would need to outbid others by a substantial amount to win such an auction

Technological Change and the Environment

Environmental policy discussions increasingly focus on issues related to technological change. This is partly because the environmental consequences of social activity are frequently affected by the rate and direction of technological change, and partly because environmental policy interventions can themselves create constraints and incentives that have significant effects on the path of technological progress. This paper, prepared as a chapter draft for the forthcoming Handbook of Environmental Economics (North-Holland/Elsevier Science), summarizes for environmental economists current thinking on technological change in the broader economics literature, surveys the growing economic literature on the interaction between technology and the environment, and explores the normative implications of these analyses. We begin with a brief overview of the economics of technological change, and then examine three important areas where technology and the environment intersect: the theory and empirical evidence of induced innovation and the related literature on the effects of environmental policy on the creation of new, environmentally friendly technology; the theory and empirics of environmental issues related to technology diffusion; and analyses of the comparative technological impacts of alternative environmental policy instruments. We conclude with suggestions for further research on technological change and the environment.

Technological Change and the Environment

Environmental policy discussions increasingly focus on issues related to technological change. This is partly because the environmental consequences of social activity are frequently affected by the rate and direction of technological change, and partly because environmental policy interventions can themselves create constraints and incentives that have significant effects on the path of technological progress. This paper, prepared as a chapter draft for the forthcoming Handbook of Environmental Economics (North-Holland/Elsevier Science), summarizes for environmental economists current thinking on technological change in the broader economics literature, surveys the growing economic literature on the interaction between technology and the environment, and explores the normative implications of these analyses. We begin with a brief overview of the economics of technological change, and then examine three important areas where technology and the environment intersect: the theory and empirical evidence of induced innovation and the related literature on the effects of environmental policy on the creation of new, environmentally friendly technology; the theory and empirics of environmental issues related to technology diffusion; and analyses of the comparative technological impacts of alternative environmental policy instruments. We conclude with suggestions for further research on technological change and the environment.technological change, induced innovation, environment, policy

The Fishery as a Watery Commons: Lessons from the Experiences of Other Public Policy Areas for U.S. Fisheries Policy

Open access, combined with modern technologies of fishing, has created serious problems of overfishing and threatens the sustainability of many U.S. fisheries. The common pool problem -- the ocean version of "the tragedy of the commons" -- is the root cause of the overfishing. The major regulatory policies of the past few decades that have tried to address overfishing -- restrictions on fishing methods and inputs (in essence, "command and control" regulation) -- have largely been failures. Indeed, they have often perversely exacerbated fisheries' overfishing problems by encouraging "fishing derbies" or "races for the fish." Fisheries are not alone in facing a common pool problem. Other areas of the U.S. economy have confronted similar problems, and public policies have developed to deal with them. This paper discusses seven of these other areas: the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, the control of sulfur dioxide emissions by electric utilities, grazing on public lands, forest logging on public lands, oil-gas-coal extraction from public lands and offshore waters, hard rock mineral (metal) mining, and surface water usage.Important lessons can be gleaned from the policies that have been developed in these other areas, and this paper applies those lessons to the design of U.S. fisheries policy.