In the late 1960s, new environmental policies emerged that attempted to reach predetermined pollution standards in a cost-effective way: i.e., the “standard-and-tax” approach proposed by William J. Baumol and Wallace E. Oates, and the permits market approach proposed by John Dales. This paper describes the early history of the two approaches, and compares them. Although today they refer to different traditions, namely Pigovian versus Coasean, and are often contrasted in the literature, these cost-effective solutions emerged at the same time and for the same reasons. First, they both tried to promote incentives-based policies against traditional regulations; second, they criticized the optimal Pigovian tax, which raised the contentious issue of measuring pollution damage. More broadly, they emerged as a kind of pragmatic compromise, fed by a common attempt to move toward more practical policies: reaching efficiency without optimality, while relying on standards whose setting is a matter for political decision.

中文翻译：

---

没有最优性的效率：1960 年代后期的环境政策和污染定价

在 1960 年代后期，出现了新的环境政策，试图以具有成本效益的方式达到预定的污染标准：即 William J. Baumol 和 Wallace E. Oates 提出的“标准加税”方法，以及许可证市场John Dales 提出的方法。本文描述了这两种方法的早期历史，并对它们进行了比较。尽管今天它们指的是不同的传统，即庇古式与科斯式，并且在文献中经常进行对比，但这些具有成本效益的解决方案同时出现，原因相同。首先，他们都试图推动以激励为基础的政策，反对传统法规；其次，他们批评了最优的庇古税，这引发了衡量污染损害的有争议的问题。更广泛地说，它们是一种务实的妥协，