Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 220, Issue 1, pp 239–262 | Cite as

International environmental cooperation: a new eye on the greenhouse gas emissions’ control

Article

Abstract

This paper re-examines the formation of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) modelled as a two-stage non-cooperative game when countries’ strategies to control pollution are complementary. This new assumption relying on empirical and theoretical evidences means that reinforcement effects do exist between countries’ strategies when polluting or abating. From a deliberately conventional model the results established analytically strongly contrast with those in the literature on IEAs. We find that the unique stable agreement can consist in half countries involved in the negotiation; we demonstrate that the environmental impact of such cooperation is almost total: it tends toward the one of the full cooperative solution. Even if the incentives to free-ride are less strong, we do not observe the formation of the “grand” coalition: not all the countries sign the agreement. We also explain why the level of cooperation is decreasing with the perception countries have of the seriousness of the problem.

Keywords

Non-cooperative game theory Global environmental problems Climate change International environmental agreements Strategic complementarities 

References

  1. D’Aspremont, C. A., Jacquemin, J., Gabszeweitz, J., & Weymark, J. A. (1983). On the stability of collusive price leadership. Canadian Journal of Economics, 16, 17–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, S. (1994). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 878–894. Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, S. (2005). The theory of international environmental agreements. In: Handbook of environmental economics, economywide and international environmental issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, A. (1992). International cooperation over greenhouse gas abatement. Mimeo, Seminar für empirische Wirtschaftsforschung, University of Munich, Munich. Google Scholar
  6. Brueckner, J. (2003). Strategic interactions among governments: an overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review, 26(2), 175–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buonanno, P., Carraro, C., & Galeotti, M. (2003). Endogenous induced technical change and the costs of Kyoto. Resource and Energy Economics, 25, 11–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carraro, C., & Siniscalco, D. (1993). Strategy for the international protection of the environment. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 309–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copeland, B., & Taylor, S. (2005). Free trade and global warming: a trade theory view of the Kyoto Protocol. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49, 205–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamantoudi, E., & Sartzetakis, E. (2006). Stable international environmental agreements: an analytical approach. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8, 247–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Maria, C., & Werf, E. (2008). Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral climate policy with directed technical change. Environmental and Resource Economic, 39, 55–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dumas, P., & Ha-Duong, M. (2005). An abrupt stochastic damage function to analyse climate policy benefits: essays on integrated assessment. In A. Haurie, L. Viguier (Eds.), The coupling of climate and economic dynamics: essays on integrated assessment. Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar
  13. Endres, A. (1997). Increasing environmental awareness to protect the global commons: a Curmudgeon’s view. Kyklos, 50, 3–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finus, M. (2001). Game theory and international environmental cooperation. New horizons in environmental economics. Cheltenham: Elgar. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finus, M. (2004). International cooperation to resolve international pollution problems (Working papers 2004.41). Milan, Italie: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Google Scholar
  16. Finus, M., & Rundshagen, B. (1998). Toward a positive theory of coalition formation and endogenous instrumental choice in global pollution control. Public Choice, 96, 145–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredriksson, P. R., & Millimet, D. L. (2002a). Strategic interaction and the determination of environmental policy across U.S. States. Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 101–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredriksson, P. R., & Millimet, D. L. (2002b). Is there a ‘California effect’ in US environmental policymaking? Regional Science and Urban Economics, 32, 737–764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillingham, K., Newell, R., & Pizer, W. (2008). Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Energy Economics, 30, 2734–2753. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golombek, R., & Hoel, M. (2004). Unilateral emission reductions and cross-country technology spillovers. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4, 1–27. Google Scholar
  21. Goulder, L., & Schneider, S. (1999). Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies. Resource and Energy Economics, 21, 211–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimes, P., & Kentor, J. (2003). Exporting the Greenhouse: foreign capital penetration and CO2 emissions 1980–1996. Journal of World-Systems Research, 2, 261–275. Google Scholar
  23. Grubb, M., Hope, C., & Fouquet, R. (2002). Climatic implications of the Kyoto Protocol: the contribution of international spillover. Climatic Change, 54, 11–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heal, G. (1993). Formation of international environmental agreements. In C. Carraro (Ed.), Trade innovation, environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  25. Heugues, M. (2009). The global emission game: on the impact of strategic interactions between countries on the existence and properties of solutions (Mimeo). Google Scholar
  26. Hoel, M. (1992). International environment conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2, 141–159. Google Scholar
  27. IPCC (2007a). Projected climate change and its impacts. Summary for policy makers. In: B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  28. IPCC (2007b). Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Jaffe, A., Newell, R., & Stavins, R. (2002). Environmental policy and technological change. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 41–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaffe, A., Newell, R., & Stavins, R. (2005). A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54, 164–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leimbach, M., & Baumstark, L. (2010). The impact of capital trade and technological spillovers on climate policies. Ecological Economics, 69, 2341–2355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Löschel, A. (2002). Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey. Ecological Economics, 43, 105–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murdoch, J. C., Sandler, T., & Sargent, K. (1997). A tale of two collectives: sulphur versus nitrogen oxides emission reduction in Europe. Economica, 64, 281–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perkins, R. (2010). The internationalisation of managerial environmentalism: globalisation, diffusion and territorialisation. Geography Compass, 4, 1069–1083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2005). The international diffusion of new technologies: a multi-technology analysis of latecomer advantage and global economic integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95, 789–808. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2008). Fostering environment-efficiency through transnational linkages? Trajectories of CO2 and SO2, 1980–2000. Environment and Planning A, 40, 2970–2989. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2009). Transnational linkages and the spillover of environment-efficiency into developing countries. Global Environmental Change, 19, 375–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2010). Geographic variations in the early diffusion of corporate voluntary standards: Comparing ISO14001 and the Global Compact. Environment and Planning A, 42, 347–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2012a). Does the ‘California effect’ operate across borders? Trading- and investing-up in automobile emission standards. Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 217–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2012b). Do recipient country characteristics affect international spillovers of CO2-efficiency via trade and foreign direct investment? Climatic Change, 112, 469–491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitlik, H. (2007). A race to liberalization? Diffusion of economic policy reform among OECD-economies. Public Choice, 132, 159–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Popp, D. (2006). Innovation in climate policy models: implementing lessons from the economics of R&D. Energy Economics, 28, 596–609. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosendahl, K. E. (2004). Cost-effective environmental policy: implications of induced technological change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, 1099–1121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubio, S. J., & Ulph, A. (2006). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements revisited. Oxford Economic Papers, 58, 233–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change. The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FEEMMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations