Karl M. Aspelund

Karl M. Aspelund

Job Market Candidate

Research Fields

Environmental Economics, Industrial Organization

Job Market Paper

Redistribution in Environmental Permit Markets: Transfers and Efficiency Costs with Trade Restrictions

Regulators often impose trade restrictions in environmental permit markets to redistribute value to groups that do not directly benefit from permit trade, such as labor in regulated firms, at the expense of lowering gains from trade. I evaluate the efficiency and distributional impacts of two common trade restrictions in Iceland’s fisheries permit market: segmented trading by firm size and individual production requirements. Using detailed harvest and permit trading data linked to administrative records on worker employment and earnings, I conduct a difference-in-differences analysis showing that permit trade increases the harvest share of productive boats by 15 percentage points, shifts income from lower- to higher-income workers, and reduces aggregate labor intensity by 12%. I further demonstrate that the trade restrictions, designed to counteract these labor impacts, are binding and lower productivity. To quantify the distinct trade-offs from each restriction, I develop a model of fishery production and permit trading to simulate profits, labor demand, and worker earnings in equilibria without the restrictions. Per dollar of foregone profit, segmentation increases labor demand 20 times more than the production requirement, while the production requirement redistributes 14% more income to low-income workers than segmentation. Implementing both restrictions outperforms the production requirement alone and is preferable to segmentation alone if regulators aim to balance job creation with a compressed income distribution.

Research Papers

Additionality and Asymmetric Information in Environmental Markets: Evidence from Conservation Auctions with Anna Russo.

Market mechanisms aim to deliver environmental services at low cost. However, this objective is undermined by participants whose conservation actions are not marginal to the incentive — or “additional” — as the lowest cost providers of environmental services may not be the highest social value. We investigate this potential market failure in the world’s largest auction mechanism for ecosystem services, the Conservation Reserve Program, with a dataset linking bids in the program’s scoring auction to satellite-derived land use. We use a regression discontinuity design to show that three of four marginal winners of the auction are not additional. Moreover, we find that the heterogeneity in counterfactual land use introduces adverse selection in the market. We then develop and estimate a joint model of multi-dimensional bidding and land use to quantify the implications of this market failure for the performance of environmental procurement mechanisms and competitive offset markets. We design alternative auctions with scoring rules that incorporate the expected impact of the auction on bidders’ land use. These auctions increase efficiency by using bids and observed characteristics to select participants based on both costs and expected additionality.

Coverage: VoxDev 

Research in Progress

Spatially Managing the Commons with Aaron Berman

Spatial closures are a common policy tool to allow natural resources to regenerate, but reopening these areas can trigger a "race," where rapid harvesting lowers prices and reduces overall efficiency. Closures also create leakage, as harvests shift to other areas, altering resource dynamics across space. Using the US Northeast scallop fishery as a case study, we analyze vessel-level harvesting data, biological stock assessments, and nearly two decades of policy variation from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We find that reopened areas induce strategic competition, with vessels offloading high-quality scallops simultaneously, driving down market prices and creating a prisoner's dilemma where spacing out effort could increase overall revenue. To evaluate closures, we estimate a model of area choice to quantify fishing costs, congestion effects, and spatial substitution, combine this with a spatial resource growth function to measure biological regrowth, and construct a demand curve to capture price effects. Simulating the removal of closures allows us to quantify their value by examining how harvests, prices, stocks, and spatial leakage evolve over time. We further investigate how closures interact with existing policies, proposing alternatives such as landing fees or tradable permits to better space out effort, reduce price declines, address leakage, and maximize the aggregate value of the stock.