That’s the title of a paper simply currently posted by Daniel Cole. The abstract:
Economists and approved college students have acknowledged for a few years that “monetary units,” along with cap-and-trade regimes and effluent taxes, can reduce emissions at lower worth than command-and-control legal guidelines. However, the US system of environmental regulation stays intently dominated by command-and-control. How can we make clear this excellent persistence?
This paper considers three totally different explanations: (1) path-dependency; (2) public choice theories of interest-group politics; and (three) social-welfare/monetary effectivity. Using examples, primarily from the US Clear Air Act, the paper finds that not one of many three choices provides a sufficient and full rationalization of the persistence of command-and-control. Nevertheless all three contribute significantly to an entire rationalization.