Extended Product Responsibility: An Economic Assessment of Alternative Policies

Extended Product Responsibility embodies the notion that agents along a product chain should share responsibility for the life-cycle environmental impacts of the product, including those associated with ultimate disposal. Extended Producer Responsibility is a narrower concept which places responsibility on producers and focuses primarily on post-consumer waste disposal. Manufacturer "take-back" requirements are the policy lever most often associated with Extended Producer Responsibility. In this paper, the authors discuss alternative incentive-based policies that are consistent with the objectives of Extended Product and Producer Responsibility. They argue that an upstream combined product tax and recycling subsidy (UCTS) is generally more cost-effective and imposes fewer transactions costs than the take-back approach. They also consider the strengths and weaknesses of a policy not targeted at producers: unit-based pricing of residential waste collection and disposal. The authors find that this option shows potential for achieving non-trivial reductions in solid waste. Widespread application in the U.S. of a $1.00 charge per 32-gallon bag could reduce total municipal solid waste disposed by approximately 13 percent per year.

[1]  James F. Burgess,et al.  Quality competition, welfare, and regulation , 1993 .

[2]  Frank Ackerman,et al.  Why Do We Recycle?: Markets, Values, and Public Policy , 1996 .

[3]  Hayne E. Leland,et al.  Quacks, Lemons, and Licensing: A Theory of Minimum Quality Standards , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  A. Spence Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation , 1975 .

[5]  M. Spence,et al.  Product Differentiation and Welfare , 1976 .

[6]  Marie Lynn Miranda,et al.  Market-based Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste , 1994 .

[7]  D. Fullerton,et al.  Policies for Green Design , 1996 .

[8]  D. Fullerton Environmental Levies and Distortionary Taxes: Comment , 1997 .

[9]  Michael J. Podolsky,et al.  Assessing Incentive‐Based Environmental Policies For Reducing Household Waste Disposal , 1998 .

[10]  Thomas C. Kinnaman,et al.  Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag , 1994 .

[11]  Robin R. Jenkins The Economics of Solid Waste Reduction: The Impact of User Fees , 1993 .

[12]  C. Shapiro Consumer Information, Product Quality, and Seller Reputation , 1982 .

[13]  Hilary A. Sigman,et al.  The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid Waste , 1997 .

[14]  M. Miranda,et al.  THE URBAN PERFORMANCE OF UNIT PRICING: AN ANALYSIS OF VARIABLE RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION IN URBAN AREAS , 1996 .

[15]  Margaret Walls,et al.  Upstream Pollution, Downstream Waste Disposal, and the Design of Comprehensive Environmental Policies , 2001 .

[16]  K. Palmer,et al.  Optimal policies for solid waste disposal Taxes, subsidies, and standards , 1997 .

[17]  Michael J. Podolsky,et al.  Municipal Waste Disposal: Unit Pricing and Recycling Opportunities , 1998 .

[18]  Jeremy I. Bulow An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence , 1986 .

[19]  Thomas C. Kinnaman,et al.  Garbage and Recycling with Endogenous Local Policy , 2000 .

[20]  T. Dinan,et al.  Economic Efficiency Effects of Alternative Policies for Reducing Waste Disposal , 1993 .

[21]  Daniel F. Spulber Effluent regulation and long-run optimality , 1985 .

[22]  K. Wertz,et al.  Economic factors influencing households' production of refuse , 1976 .

[23]  Dallas Burtraw,et al.  THE SO2 EMISSIONS TRADING PROGRAM: COST SAVINGS WITHOUT ALLOWANCE TRADES , 1996 .

[24]  Wallace E. Oates,et al.  The theory of environmental policy , 1976 .