Minimum Participation Rules with Heterogeneous Countries
Tóm tắt
Almost all international environmental agreements include a minimum participation rule. Under such rule an agreement becomes legally binding if and only if a certain threshold in terms of membership or contribution is reached. We analyse a cartel game with open membership and heterogeneous countries to study the endogenous choice of a minimum participation rule and its role for the success of international environmental agreements. While a full participation requirement would be efficient, we find (sequential) equilibria with a minimum participation rule that allows at least one country to free ride. Free riding may occur if a country can exploit some bargaining power in the negotiation of the minimum participation rule.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Admati AR, Perry M (1991) Joint projects without commitment. Rev Econ Stud 58:259–276
Bagnoli M, Lipman BL (1989) Provision of public goods: fully implementing the core through private contributions. Rev Econ Stud 56:538–601
Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894
Barrett S (2003) Environment and statecraft. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Barrett S (2007) Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Barrett S (2009) Rethinking global climate change governance. Economics 3:1–12
Bernheim BD, Peleg B (1987) Coalition-proof nash equilibria I. Concepts. J Econ Theory 42:1–12
Black J, Levi M, de Meza D (1993) Creating a good atmosphere: minimum participation for tackling the ’greenhouse effect’. Economica 60(239):281–293
Boadway R, Song Z, Tremblay J-F (2011) The efficiency of voluntary pollution abatement when countries can commit. Eur J Polit Econ 27:352–368
Böhringer C, Vogt C (2004) The dismantling of a breakthrough: the Kyoto Protocol as symbolic policy. Eur J Polit Econ 20(3):597–617
Brandt US (2002) Actions prior to entering an international environmental agreement. J Inst Theor Econ 158(4):695–712
Caparrós A, Pereau J-C (2004) North-south climate change negotiations: a sequential game with asymmetric information. Pub Choice 121(3–4):455–480
Carraro C, Eyckmans J, Finus M (2006) Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements. Rev Int Organ 1:379–396
Carraro C, Marchiori C (2003) Stable coalitions. In: Carraro C (ed) The endogenous formation of economic coalitions. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 156–198
Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Pub Econ 52(3):309–328
Carraro C, Marchiori C, Oreffice S (2009) Endogenous minimum participation in international environmental treaties. Environ Resour Econ 42:411–425
Chander P, Tulkens H (1995) A core-theoretic solution for the design of cooperative agreements on transfrontier pollution. Int Tax Pub Finance 2:279–293
Chander P, Tulkens H (1997) The core of an economy with multilateral environmental externalities. Int J Game Theory 26:379–401
Courtois P, Haeringer G (2012) Environmental cooperation: ratifying second best agreements. Pub Choice 151:565–584
d’Aspremont C, Jaquemin A, Gabszewicz J (1983) On the stability of collusive price leadership. Can J Econ 16:17–25
Dagoumas S, Papagiannis K, Dokopoulos S (2006) An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol application. Energy Policy 34(1):26–39
Diamantoudi E, Sartzetakis ES (2006) Stable international environmental agreements: an analytical approach. J Pub Econ Theory 8(2):247–263
Dietz S, Marchiori C, Tavoni A (2012) Domestic politics and the formation of international environmental agreements. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 76
Eyckmans J, Finus M (2004) An almost ideal sharing scheme for coalition games with externalities. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Center for Economic Studies, Working paper 2004–2014
Finus M (2003) Stability and design of international environmental agreements: the case of transboundary pollution. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds) International yearbook of environmental and resource economics, 2002/2003. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 82–158
Finus M (2008) Game theoretic research on the design of international environmental agreements: insights, critical remarks and future challenges. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 2:29–67
Finus M, Pintassilgo P (2013) The role of uncertainty and learning for the success of international climate agreements. J Pub Econ 103:20–43
Folmer H, von Mouche P (2000) Transboundary pollution and international cooperation. In: Tietenberg T, Folmer H (eds) The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2000/2001. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 231–266
Fuentes-Albero C, Rubio SJ (2010) Can the international environmental cooperation be bought? Eur J Oper Res 202(1):255–264
Grüning C, Peters W (2010) Can justice and fairness enlarge international environmental agreements? Games 1(2):137–158
Hafalir I (2007) Efficiency in coalition games with externalities. Games Econ Behav 61(2):242–258
Harstad B (2006) Flexible integration? Mandatory and minimum participation rules. Scand J Econ 108(4):683–702
Hoel M (1992) International environment conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environ Resour Econ 2(2):141–159
IPCC (2007) International Panel on Climate Change, 30 April-4 May 2007: Mitigation of climate change—Summary for policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
Kolstad CD (2007) Systematic uncertainty in self-enforcing international environmental agreements. J Environ Econ Manag 53:68–79
Kreps DM, Wilson R (1982) Sequential equilibria. Econometrica 50:863–894
Lessman K, Edenhofer O (2011) Research cooperation and international standards in a model of coalition stability. Resour Energy Econ 33(1):36–54
McEvoy D, Stranlund J (2009) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements with costly monitoring for compliance. Environ Resour Econ 42:491–508
McGinty M (2007) International environmental agreements among asymmetric nations. Oxf Econ Pap 59:45–62
McGinty M (2011) A risk-dominant allocation: maximizing coalition stability. J Pub Econ Theory 13(2):311–325
Nagashima M, van Dellink R, Ierland E, Weikard H-P (2009) Stability of international climate coalitions—a comparison of transfer schemes. Ecol Econ 68(5):1476–1487
Okada A (1993) The possibility of cooperation in an n-person prisoners’ dilemma with institutional arrangements. Pub Choice 77:629–656
Ostrom E (1986) An agenda for the study of institutions. Pub Choice 48:3–25
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rubio SJ, Casino B (2005) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements with a stock pollutant. Span Econ Rev 7:89–109
Rutz S (2001) Minimum participation rules and the effectiveness of multilateral environmental agreements. Working paper 01/22, Centre for Economic Research, SFIT, Zürich
Stern N et al (2007) The economics of climate ahange: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ulph A (2004) Stable international environmental agreements with a stock pollutant, uncertainty and learning. J Risk Uncertain 29(1):53–73
UN (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
UNFCCC (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNEP/INC/98/2, Information Unit for Conventions, UNEP, Geneva, 1998). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
Wangler L, Altamirano-Cabrera J-C, Weikard H-P (2013) The political economy of international environmental agreements: a survey. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 13:387–403
Weikard H-P (2009) Cartel atability under an optimal aharing rule. Manch Sch 77:599–617
Weikard H-P, Dellink R (2014) Sticks and carrots for the design of international climate agreements with renegotiations. Ann Oper Res 220(1):49–68
Weikard H-P, Finus M, Altamirano-Cabrera J-C (2006) The impact of aurplus sharing on the stability of international climate agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 58:209–232
