The Student Room Group

Alevel Economics help

According to Public Health England, poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. In particular, diesel cars are estimated to be responsible for 40 000 premature deaths each year. In response, the Government announced in 2017 that it would ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

Assess the view that regulation is a better policy for dealing with the problem of air pollution than the allocation of property rights or taxation. 25 marks

does anyone know what points to write
hi
well if someone is rich then taxation probably wouldn't make much difference to then whereas if they had to do something because of regulation it would stop them
hope I could help :smile:
Original post by hannah52
According to Public Health England, poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. In particular, diesel cars are estimated to be responsible for 40 000 premature deaths each year. In response, the Government announced in 2017 that it would ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040.

Assess the view that regulation is a better policy for dealing with the problem of air pollution than the allocation of property rights or taxation. 25 marks

does anyone know what points to write

So the bit about property rights is clearly wanting you to talk through the Coase theorem, how private individuals could negotiate and come to an optimal decision without government intervention. There are obvious limitations to the Coase theorem.

Regulation is good in the sense that it can just outright ban something so can be effective. However, you have to consider the monitoring costs, enforcement costs, have to make sure the regulation is perfectly targeted, it can create rent seeking. One of the problems with bans is that it doesn't really give individuals a choice on how they can most efficiently reduce their carbon consumption, for example a carbon tax gives people the choice whereas regulation doesn't so can be effective but potentially inefficient.

Taxation is wanting you to use a negative production externality and how the use of a tax move the market to a socially optimal quantity of pollution. However, it assumes the government can accurately calculate the correct tax needed to solve the externality, this is unlikely because it's hard for the government to estimate private costs and benefit curves. You could argue a benefit is that it creates a double dividend in that it solves the negative externality but also raises revenue for the government.

If you wanted to evaluate these points, one thing to consider how these policies impact people across the income distribution. Perhaps poorer individuals can't afford to substitute petrol cars for electronic ones, perhaps a carbon tax would harm them more as heating costs make up a larger proportion of their income. Perhaps poorer people actually take more public transport so would be less effected. All things to consider

Quick Reply

Latest