This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Economic Perspectives
  4. Fall 2019
  5. What Do Economists Have to Say about the Clean Air Act 50 Years after the Establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency?

What Do Economists Have to Say about the Clean Air Act 50 Years after the Establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency?

Download Full Text PDF
(Complimentary)

Abstract

Air quality in the United States has improved dramatically over the past 50 years in large part due to the introduction of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce it. This article is a reflection on the 50-year anniversary of the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, describing what economic research says about the ways in which the Clean Air Act has shaped our society—in terms of costs, benefits, and important distributional concerns. We conclude with a discussion of how recent changes to both policy and technology present new opportunities for researchers in this area.

Citation

Currie, Janet, and Reed Walker. 2019. "What Do Economists Have to Say about the Clean Air Act 50 Years after the Establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (4): 3-26. DOI: 10.1257/jep.33.4.3

Additional Materials

JEL Classification

  • A11 Role of Economics; Role of Economists; Market for Economists
  • K32 Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
  • Q53 Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
  • Q55 Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
  • Q58 Environmental Economics: Government Policy

data sets

  • Posted by DANLEY B. WOLFE
  • Posted on 2/3/2020 3:27:37 PM
footnote at bottom of page 1 says datasets are available at the link. I went to the link... they are noty there. Specifically I looked at Figure 1 and said ... in re to pollutants such as CO, NO2, ozone, particulates PM2.5 zero is usually the preferred reference point. The autors chose in the figure to center the correlation in the figure perhaps for aesthetic reasons. Showing zero would have been more useful to readerss of the paper.
Login to Comment