Arthur Pigou and the main waterway externalities

Juan Jose Pavelolis

The concept of efficiency in resource allocation in an economy is closely related to the following:Vilfredo Pareto

. For the Italian economist, economic efficiency is achieved when an optimal state of resource allocation is reached in which no improvement in the condition of agent A occurs without harming agent B. pulled ashore,The benefits that highway deepening brings to highway users can undermine the right to collective impacts on a healthy environment, can encourage jurisdictional action based on remedial or preventive claims, and, if the impacts are ignored, can ultimately cut off the flow of water commerce.

To. According to this idea, in the 20 years of the last century,Arthur Pigou draws attention to the Pareto principle, which warns that this type of phenomenon has a causal relationship with harmful events.

. Note that markets, in their claims to allocate resources efficiently, produce negative external effects that prevent the achievement of Parethian efficiency. British economists called these effects “externalities” and focused their research on environmental issues in particular.As a simple example, Pigou suggests that if a factory pollutes the air in order to produce, it is using an entire region’s resources for which it does not have to pay. This means that instead of obtaining clean air to use as a source through the market, we are pumping contaminated air back into the community.

. Pigou’s solution from an economic point of view isAll resources have a cost

that is why he conceived the tax that later came to be called the “Pigouvian tax” from this point of view. It seeks to impose costs on polluters for the costs of resources that they inflict harm and would otherwise use without paying. For main waterways, environmental issues are similar to rivers flowing in cycles. In other words, although it seems like we are moving towards an agreement, we never actually move forward and always end up back at the same point.Some are adamantly opposed to deepening due to its devastating environmental effects, while others present thousands of pages of research that contradict that hypothesis. . Of course, the nextNiels Bohr

both move inexorably into the future and are extremely difficult to predict accurately. But painfully, both prospects of a likely future force us into a static present.

In this framework, Pigou is probably spot on. One solution might be to add the final cost of environmental remediation to the operating costs of main waterways. That is, evaluate potential environmental damage scenarios and select possible scenarios. That is, it is neither a catastrophic scenario nor one that indicates that the waterway becomes a pristine ecosystem and calculates the cost of eventual environmental remediation in that scenario. We then add the cost of any damage to your rate to create a fund to repair the damage. This could be a way to unblock this continuous circular flow. Environmentalists would be more calm knowing that resources are available to repair the final damage, and indirect users would likely be more cautious about signing up for research that might require them to dip into their wallets. In Pigou’s words,Pay environmental costs that are no longer free

.

Overseas captain. Naval navigation expert. MBA, PhD Business Administration, PON Harvard Law. Former Maritime Center Chairman. I want to meet you!