tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post2713864683127170271..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: Coasean biosecurity externalitiesEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-91897967590638529552015-05-26T14:51:36.266+12:002015-05-26T14:51:36.266+12:00That's excellent.That's excellent.Eric Cramptonhttp://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-5906863609427456012015-05-26T13:44:08.711+12:002015-05-26T13:44:08.711+12:00Maybe, altho the very diffuse nature of the levy m...Maybe, altho the very diffuse nature of the levy makes it all but impossible for us travellers to negotiate with the industries that benefit (except thru the political process), and so in that sense the choice has been made to preference (perhaps subsidise) some industries at the expense of the free movement of holidaymakers. Perhaps both ability to grow apples and freedom to travel are some sense "good", but in that case it is less clear why it is a good policy to fund biosecurity by this levy rather than from general taxation.Michael Reddellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-37269973094268145322015-05-26T12:58:40.955+12:002015-05-26T12:58:40.955+12:00They have. It's called government-industry agr...They have. It's called government-industry agreements. <br />http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/biosec/new-post-border/gia<br />https://mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/6391<br /><br />Coase was the basis of this and the biosecurity funding principles I wrote when at the former MAF.<br /><br /><br />"Furthermore, the government does not have good information about how much biosecurity is desired and efficient. With the government being the primary funder of readiness and response, MAF often gets signals from industries that everything is a top priority. Because government does not have accurate information about biosecurity needs, the government might not be spending enough on biosecurity, might be spending too much, and/or spending money addressing risks that are not priorities."Sam Warburtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-82887344583926719182015-05-25T17:45:44.669+12:002015-05-25T17:45:44.669+12:00Certainly, a case could be made to cover the cost ...Certainly, a case could be made to cover the cost of a risk-reducing activity through a levy on those who benefit from a risk being reduced, rather than a levy on those who cause the risk to increase. But it's the numbers of the latter who drive the cost, and so administratively it would seem to be more likely that a levy on the cost-causers can be more easily designed to both be predictable and to match the actual cost, than can a levy on the benefit-experiencers.Elinor_Dashwoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-19023018761498640162015-05-23T12:08:51.146+12:002015-05-23T12:08:51.146+12:00Thanks Eric
I don't claim any expertise on the...Thanks Eric<br />I don't claim any expertise on the biosecurity stuff, but I'd have thought most of the apparatus around human movement had to do with concern about fruit flies etc. Foot and mouth would do a lot of damage, but my impression had been that that was mainly controlled by restrictions on the importation of animals (and quarantine when animals do arrive). I presume there is a whole different set of charges for those.<br />Apple and kiwifruit exports together are around $1.5bn per annum. There are some other fruit exports as well, but if the bulk of the $100m the passenger tax is going to raise really did relate mainly to those industries, it would represent quite a large share of the export value-added (and total industry value-add would be larger, given domestic consumption).Michael Reddellnoreply@blogger.com