More positively, the instrument mus

More positively, the instrument must help improve the efficiency of resource use, increase
productivity, and economize on scarce resources (e.g., capital, skills, and management). It is also desirable that the instrument promotes the search, development and adoption of more efficient, less wasteful production technologies. Clearly, the development priority of developing countries favors the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility of economic instruments over the rigidity and costinsensitivity of command and control. Moreover, it has clear implications for the choice of economic instruments and the mode and speed of their introduction. Clearly, secure property rights, efficient taxation of natural resources, and gradually phased-in pollution charges are favored by the high priority that developing countries attach to their growth objectives.
At the same time, poverty alleviation and improved income distribution are also among the top
objectives of developing country governments. Therefore, the distributional implication of economic instruments is also of primary concern. It is not sufficient that secure property rights to open access resources are assigned; it matters who gets them. If the poor who depend on these resources for survival are assigned the property rights, both efficiency and distribution improve, otherwise efficiency is gained at the expense of equity. Similarly, the incidence of pollution or product charges may by regressive if they raise the price of goods that account for a higher percentage of poor people's expenditure, or if the environmental improvement so attained benefits mainly the rich. Distributional concerns may disqualify certain instruments (e.g., bidding for open access resources), favor differential rate structure (e.g., lower charge rates for basic necessities), or suggest mitigation measures (e.g., offsetting the regressivity of tax charge incidence by the progressivity of spending charge revenues). Of course, the ultimate choice of the appropriate instruments would also be influenced by other features of developing countries, to which we now turn.
Low Willingness to Pay for Environmental Amenities
The lower per capita incomes of developing countries imply higher marginal utility of income and
lower willingness to pay for environmental improvements and amenities. Whenever a development
opportunity and environmental protection are in conflict (or in a tradeoff relationship), the choice between the two would be influenced by existing levels of income, as well as by other factors such as preferences, environmental awareness, etc. Other things constant, low income people would assign a relatively higher value to each additional dollar of income (from the development opportunity) than rich people, because of the higher marginal utility of income at low-income levels. At the same time, poor people have a lower willingness to pay for environmental quality or amenities because environmental services are income elastic (i.e., their demand is low at low income levels but rises more than proportionately with income growth). Both these factors would result in individuals assigning higher priority to development than environmental protection (unless of course, the latter is an input into the former).
Thus, economic instruments set according to estimates of marginal damages or marginal benefits
derived from estimates of people's willingness to pay for a benefit (or accept compensation for a damage) better accommodate the significant differences in willingness to pay and marginal valuations of income between developed and developing countries than do command and control regulations. This is particularly important at low levels of income, where survival can be threatened by a small change in prices or a reduction in income. Therefore, the developed country regulations and standards (or level of pollution charges) are not suitable for poor countries and if enforced, can in fact lower welfare and even threaten survival. Developed country environmental standards (not consumption patterns) can only serve as long-term targets or aspirations, just as developed country living standards can.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Lebih positif, instrumen harus membantu meningkatkan efisiensi penggunaan sumber daya, peningkatanproduktivitas, dan menghemat sumber daya yang langka (misalnya, modal, keterampilan, dan manajemen). Juga diharapkan bahwa instrumen mempromosikan Cari, pengembangan dan penerapan teknologi produksi yang lebih efisien, kurang boros. Jelas, prioritas pembangunan negara-negara berkembang nikmat efisiensi, efektivitas biaya, dan fleksibilitas dari instrumen ekonomi atas kekakuan dan costinsensitivity dari komando dan kontrol. Selain itu, ini mempunyai implikasi jelas pilihan instrumen ekonomi dan modus dan kecepatan pengenalan mereka. Jelas, hak milik aman, efisien perpajakan sumber daya alam, dan biaya secara bertahap dihapus-in polusi disukai oleh prioritas tinggi yang melampirkan negara-negara berkembang untuk tujuan pertumbuhan mereka.Pada saat yang sama, pengentasan kemiskinan dan peningkatan pendapatan distribusi juga berada di antara bagian atasTujuan dari pemerintah negara berkembang. Oleh karena itu, distribusi implikasi ekonomi instrumen ini juga menjadi perhatian utama. Tidaklah cukup bahwa hak milik aman untuk membuka akses sumber daya ditetapkan; hal-hal yang membuat mereka. Jika orang-orang miskin yang bergantung pada sumber daya ini untuk bertahan hidup yang diberikan hak milik, kedua meningkatkan efisiensi dan distribusi, sebaliknya efisiensi diperoleh dengan mengorbankan ekuitas. Demikian pula, insiden biaya polusi atau produk Mei oleh Pasal jika mereka menaikkan harga barang itu akun untuk persentase yang lebih tinggi dari orang-orang miskin pengeluaran, atau jika perbaikan lingkungan sehingga mencapai manfaat terutama yang kaya. Distribusi keprihatinan mungkin mendiskualifikasi instrumen tertentu (misalnya, penawaran untuk membuka akses sumber daya), mendukung struktur diferensial suku (misalnya, lebih rendah biaya harga untuk kebutuhan pokok), atau menyarankan langkah-langkah mitigasi (misalnya, pengimbangan regressivity insiden biaya pajak oleh progressivity pengeluaran biaya pendapatan). Tentu saja, pilihan utama instrumen yang sesuai akan juga dapat dipengaruhi oleh fitur lain dari negara-negara berkembang, yang kita sekarang beralih.Rendah kesediaan untuk membayar untuk fasilitas dan lingkunganPendapatan per kapita lebih rendah negara-negara berkembang berarti lebih tinggi utilitas pendapatan danbawah kesediaan untuk membayar perbaikan lingkungan dan fasilitas. Setiap kali sebuah pembangunanopportunity and environmental protection are in conflict (or in a tradeoff relationship), the choice between the two would be influenced by existing levels of income, as well as by other factors such as preferences, environmental awareness, etc. Other things constant, low income people would assign a relatively higher value to each additional dollar of income (from the development opportunity) than rich people, because of the higher marginal utility of income at low-income levels. At the same time, poor people have a lower willingness to pay for environmental quality or amenities because environmental services are income elastic (i.e., their demand is low at low income levels but rises more than proportionately with income growth). Both these factors would result in individuals assigning higher priority to development than environmental protection (unless of course, the latter is an input into the former).Thus, economic instruments set according to estimates of marginal damages or marginal benefitsberasal dari perkiraan keinginan masyarakat untuk membayar manfaat (atau menerima kompensasi atas kerusakan) lebih mengakomodasi perbedaan yang signifikan dalam keinginan untuk membayar dan marjinal penilaian pendapatan antara berkembang dan negara-negara berkembang daripada perintah dan peraturan kontrol. Hal ini terutama penting di tingkat rendah pendapatan, mana kelangsungan hidup dapat terancam oleh small change harga atau pengurangan pendapatan. Oleh karena itu, negara-negara maju peraturan dan standar (atau tingkat polusi biaya) ini tidak cocok untuk negara-negara miskin dan jika dipaksakan, bisa bahkan lebih rendah kesejahteraan dan bahkan mengancam kelangsungan hidup. Negara-negara maju standar lingkungan (tidak pola konsumsi) hanya dapat melayani sebagai target jangka panjang atau aspirasi, standar hidup negara hanya sebagai maju bisa.