Lobbying for carbon permits in Europe .

Using cross-sector and cross-country data, this paper evidences that rent seeking influenced the allocation of CO2 emission permits in the two first phases of the European emissions trading scheme. Industry lobbies effectively used the ‘job loss’ argument, as unemployment variables significantly imp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Recherches économiques de Louvain
Main Author: Hanoteau, Julien
Format: Journal Article
Language:French
Published: De Boeck Université 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Using cross-sector and cross-country data, this paper evidences that rent seeking influenced the allocation of CO2 emission permits in the two first phases of the European emissions trading scheme. Industry lobbies effectively used the ‘job loss’ argument, as unemployment variables significantly impacted the allocations in both phases. The countries that adopted a partial auction scheme also gave relatively more permits and in particular to the politically more powerful sectors. This suggests a compensation mechanism and supports the assumption of a political tradeoff between the quantity of permits issued and the decision between free grant and auction. It also confirms that the initial allocation is not neutral in the presence of special interest lobbying. Using cross-sector and cross-country data, this paper evidences that rent seeking influenced the allocation of CO2 emission permits in the two first phases of the European emissions trading scheme. Industry lobbies effectively used the ‘job loss’ argument, as unemployment variables significantly impacted the allocations in both phases. The countries that adopted a partial auction scheme also gave relatively more permits and in particular to the politically more powerful sectors. This suggests a compensation mechanism and supports the assumption of a political tradeoff between the quantity of permits issued and the decision between free grant and auction. It also confirms that the initial allocation is not neutral in the presence of special interest lobbying.
ISSN:0770-4518
1782-1495
DOI:10.3917/rel.801.0061