How can market structure of Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets be represented analytically?
In a world with two components, the economy and the environment such as the world of environmentally dirty markets, the nature of each components in any model determines the nature of that market, which raises the question: How can the market structure of Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets be represented analytically?
Market for pollution can be represented analytically or in an econometric model to be suitable for estimation by following these two theories of pollution; the neoclassical theory by (AC Pigou, Marshall and Ronald Coase) and Materials-Balance theory by Ayres and Kness and Ayres and D'Arge. I also suggest this model to capture the effect of pollution which is adapted from the work Biala and Babatunde (2010), Externality effects of sachet water consumption and the choice of policy instrument in Nigeria: Evidence from Kwara state. In their study they adopted the model of Cropper and Oates (1992). The model goes thus: U= U(X, Q); X= X(L, E, Q); and Q=Q(E)
X= bundle of goods,
Q= level of pollution,
E= waste emision, and
L= bundles of convectional inputs like capital and labour.
“In a world with two components, the economy and the environment such as the world of environmentally dirty markets, the nature of each component in any model determines the nature of that market…”
And based on this context the question is: How can the market structure of Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets be represented analytically?
They are 3 different types of markets, different model/market structure, different price structure, different choice structure, and different cost structure. But the question for simplicity is focused only on their different market structure and how to represent it analytically...
If you would like to share your ideas on how this question can be answered, please do it.
See we know, a) sustainability(optimization based) is not sustainable development (maximization based); b) The commission gave us a definition of sustainable development and not of sustainability as they saw the social and environmental issues created by the traditional market in terms of sustainable development thinking; c) that is why we have sustainable development goals, NOT sustainability goals.
We know the sustainability model is different than the sustainable development model and according to the model inconsistency principle sustainability and sustainable development can not be equated or defined one as the other or the other as the one.
But the UN defines sustainability as sustainable development there, a scientific inconsistency as it violates the theory-practice consistency principle.
Which raises the question, Do defining sustainability as sustainable development requires alternative academic facts? If yes, Why?
I think YES, what do you think?
Feel free to provide your own view when answering the question.
In a world faced with accelerating climate change, economic instability and resource limits, it is urgent to find better indicators of progress towards sustainability. The available indicators mostly succeed at measuring unsustainable trends that can be targeted by management action, but fall short of defining or ensuring sustainability. A recent r...
The question "what are the determinants of growth?' can be tackled in two ways. From a microeconomic perspective, having defined a production function, it is clear that growth being the rate of change of output, is explained by growth of the inputs. From a macroeconomic perspective, however, the question becomes: "changes in which aggregates are as...