Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Seminar 10 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - land use based comodities like palm oil are price inelastic
        
        once you try to protec an area, price goes down and deforestation intensive activity just shifts to another area
        
        direct effect on the environmental outcome - if you dont account for this type of spilover you will get a biased outcome when it comes to measuring environemtal effect
- - - - methodology
      - brazilian amazon
      - violence reference
      - both focused on effect of monitoring
      - relatively long time observation
      - both policies are command and control mechanisms
      - both use panel data
      - time lines overlap
      - violence as spillover
    - - the focus in Braganca is on political dynamics
      - focus on mahogany trade vs deforestation
      - mahogany paper focuses on the state of para wheras the other one focuses on the whole of amazon
      - paper 1 focuses on spillover effect vs. p2 it is a secondary mention
  - - - policy had disproportionate effect based on who was in power -> farmer politicians were more likely to support deforestation because their electorate are other farmers
        
        politicians were disincentivized to support farmers interests => this results in decreased deforestation -> this was not the intent of the policy => if it was it wouldn't be possible to push this policy through
        
        positive spillover
        
        but did it have an impact on political outcomes?
        
        no
        
        no real effect => change over time => none; did the policy lead to increase or decrease of the power of farmer politicians (did farmers vote more for farmer politicians because they would hate the environmental protection policy)
        
        policy implication: you need to take ppl with you when you design this kind of policy - it seems like they did in this case
        
        they this policy had no effect on more farmer politicians being elected
      - p1 making the trade illegal to reduce it but bc of weak state enforement informal enforcement (violence) was increased and taxes were decreased -> this leaves more money for traders, reaises stakes, increases violence
        
        ppl who designed the prohibition didnt anticipate spike in violence
        
        negative spillover