Publications

1999
Stavins, Robert N. “An SAB Report on the EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis.” Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, 1999. sab_report_on_guidelines.pdf

E-3

Hahn, Robert W, and Robert N Stavins. “What Has the Kyoto Protocol Wrought? The Real Architecture of International Tradeable Permit Markets.” Washington, D.C. The AEI Press, 1999. what_has_kyoto_wrought.pdf

F-15

1998
Keohane, Nathaniel, R Revesz, and Robert N Stavins. “The Choice of Regulatory Instruments in Environmental Policy.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 22 (1998): 313–367. the_choice_of_regulatory.pdf

A-25

Stavins, Robert N. “Economic Incentives for Environmental Regulation.” In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, edited by Peter Newman. London, UK: Macmillan Reference ; New York, NY, USA, 1998. economicincentivesforenvironmentalprotection.macmillanpress.pdf

C-11

Fullerton, Don, and Robert Stavins. “How Economists See the Environment.” Nature 395 (1998): 433–434. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Economists and ecologists misunderstand each other about the environment. Improving interdisciplinary communication should enable natural scientists to take economic analysis and prescriptions more seriously.

how_economists_see_the_environment.pdf

A-27

Stavins, Robert N. “A Methodological Investigation of the Costs of Carbon Sequestration.” Journal of Applied Economics 1 (1998): 231–277. Publisher's Version a_methodological_investigation.pdf

A-23

Stavins, Robert N. “An SAB Advisory on Economic Research Topics and Priorities.” Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, 1998. sab_report_on_econ_research_topics.pdf

E-1

Stavins, Robert N. “Significant Issues for Environmental Policy and Air Regulation for the Next Decade.” Environmental Science and Policy 1 (1998): 143–147. significant_issues.pdf

A-24

Stavins, Robert N. “What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from so2 Allowance Trading.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (1998): 69–88. Publisher's Version what_can_we_learn_from_the_grand_policy_experiment.pdf

A-26

1997
Hockenstein, Jeremy B, Robert N Stavins, and Bradley W Whitehead. “Crafting the Next Generation of Market-Based Environmental Tools.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 39 (1997): 12–33. Publisher's Version crafting_the_next_generation.pdf

A-21

Stavins, Robert N. “Environmental Protection: The Changing Nature of National Governance.” Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, 1997. envir._protection_visions_of_governance.pdf

F-13

Whitehead, B, and Robert N Stavins. “Market-Based Environmental Policies.” In Thinking Ecologically: The Next Generation of Environmental Policy, edited by Marian R Chertow and Daniel C Esty, 105–117. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. market_based_environmental_policies.pdf

C-10

Stavins, Robert N. “Policy Instruments for Climate Change: How Can National Governments Address a Global Problem.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1997 (1997): 293–329. Publisher's Version policy_instruments_for_climate_change.pdf

A-22

1996
Arrow, Kenneth J, Maureen L Cropper, George C Eads, Robert W Hahn, Lester B Lave, Roger G Noll, Paul R Portney, et al.Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation.” Washington, D.C. American Enterprise Institute, The Annapolis Center, and Resources for the Future, 1996. benefit_cost_analysis_in_environmental.aei_.1996.pdf

F-11

Stavins, Robert N. “Correlated Uncertainty and Policy Instrument Choice.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996): 218–232. Publisher's VersionAbstract

For two decades, environmental economists have generally maintained that benefit uncertainty is irrelevant for choosing between price and quantity instruments, but that cost uncertainty matters, with the identity of the efficient instrument depending upon the relative slopes of the marginal benefit and cost functions. But, in the presence of simultaneous, correlated uncertainty, such policy instrument recommendations may be inappropriate. With plausible values of relevant parameters, the conventional identification of a price instrument will be reversed, to favor instead a quantity instrument. The opposite reversal—from the choice of a quantity instrument to a price instrument—seems less likely to occur.

correlated_uncertainty_jeem.pdf

A-18

Stavins, Robert N. “Economic Thinking in Environmental Coverage: It's Not Accounting.” The Quill 84 (1996): 31–34. econ_thinking_in_env_coverage.quill_.newsbackgrounder.1996.pdf

D-17

Barrett, Scott, Jean-Charles Hourcade, and Robert N Stavins. “Nordic Joint Implementation Negotiations: Evaluation of an Experiment,” 1996. nordic_joint.1997.pdf

F-12

Barrett, Scott, P Bohm, B Fisher, M Kuroda, J Mubazi, A Shah, and Robert N Stavins. “Policy Instruments to Combat Climate Change.” In Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Second Assessment Report, Working Group III, Chapter 11. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ipcc_ar2_chapter_11.pdf

C-9

Stavins, Robert N. “Review of Valuing Climate Change by Samuel Fankhauser.” Journal of Economic Literature 34 (1996): 1999–2000. review_of_valuing_climate_change.pdf

A-20

Arrow, Kenneth J, Maureen L Cropper, George C Eads, Robert W Hahn, Lester B Lave, Roger G Noll, Paul R Portney, et al.Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?New Series 272 (1996): 221–222. Publisher's Version is_there_a_role_for_benefitcost_analysis.pdf

A-19

Pages