Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T14:20:55.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing multiple fishery pools: property rights regimes and market structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2008

ALEX HALSEMA  and
CEES WITHAGEN
ALEX HALSEMA
Affiliation:
Department of Spatial Economics, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: ahalsema@feweb.vu.nl
CEES WITHAGEN
Affiliation:
Department of Spatial Economics, VU University Amsterdam and Department of Economics, Tilburg University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Well-defined and enforceable property rights are usually seen as a prerequisite for optimal resource management. However, the interaction effects between different renewable resource pools with different ownership structures are often not well recognized. In this paper we introduce these interaction effects in optimal fishery management theory. Various property rights regimes and market structures for fisheries are analyzed. Furthermore, we perform a sensitivity analysis with respect to the carrying capacity of a fish lake for the different agents. We describe various approach paths towards the new equilibrium after opening up to a common market. We show that a decline in market power leads to a lower stock and a higher supply. Furthermore we identify conditions under which market power might reduce profits.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 6: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT , December 2008 , pp. 775 - 794
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brander, J. and Taylor, M. (1998), ‘Open access renewable resources: trade and trade policy in a two-country model’, Journal of International Economics 44: 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. (1994), ‘North–South trade and the global environment’, The American Economic Review 84: 851–874.Google Scholar
Clark, C. (2005), Mathematical Bioeconomics: Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, 2nd edition, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Datta, M. and Mirman, L. (1999), ‘Externalities, market power and resource extraction’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37: 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and Heal, G. (1979), Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishbase (2005), ‘Oreochromos alealicus’, http://ichtyonb1.mnhn.fr/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=2034Google Scholar
Gilbert, R.J. (1978), ‘Dominant firm pricing policy in a market for an exhaustible resource’, The Bell Journal of Economics 9: 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S. (1954), ‘The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery’, The Journal of Political Economy 62: 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, F., Withagen, C., and de Zeeuw, A. (1992), ‘Note on the open-loop von Stackelberg equilibrium in the cartel versus fringe model’, The Economic Journal 102: 1478–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, F., Withagen, C., and de Zeeuw, A. (2003), ‘Strong time-consistency in the cartel-versus-fringe model’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28: 387–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. and Marmulla, G. (2001), ‘The influence of dams on river fisheries’, in Marmulla, G. (ed.), Dams, Fish and Fisheries: Opportunities, Challenges and Conflict Resolution, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 419, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Kahn, J. (2005), The Economic Approach to Environmental and Natural Resources, Ohio: Thomson, South-Western.Google Scholar
Kaliba, A., Ngugi, C., Mackambo, J., and Quagrainie, K. (2007), ‘Economic profitability of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) production in Kenya’, Aquaculture Research 38: 1129–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, L. (1992), ‘Social welfare in a common property oligopoly’, International Economic Review 33: 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LakeNet (2008), ‘Lake Profile – Nakuru’, http://www.worldlakes.org/lakedetails.asp?lakeid=8363Google Scholar
Newbery, D. (1981), ‘Oil prices, cartels, and the problem of dynamic inconsistency’, The Economic Journal 91: 617–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outdoor News Network (2003), ‘Genetic tests show Trout Lake fish unique’, http://www.outdoorcentral.com/mc/pr/03/06/10e11.aspGoogle Scholar
Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., and Common, M. (2003), Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Ramsar (2001), ‘Information sheet on Ramsar wetlands (RIS) – United Republic of Tanzania, Lake Natron Basin, 2001’, http://www.ramsar.org/ris/ris_tanzania_natron.htmGoogle Scholar
Vareschi, E. (1979), ‘The ecology of Lake Nakuru (Kenya)’, Oecologia 37: 321–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vareschi, E. (1982), ‘The ecology of Lake Nakuru (Kenya)’, Oecologia 55: 81–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed