Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 389–403 | Cite as

Uncertainty, Learning and Heterogeneity in International Environmental Agreements

Article

Abstract

This paper concerns the formation of International Environmental Agreements under uncertainty about environmental damage with different models of learning (complete learning, partial learning or no learning). The results of the existing literature are generally pessimistic: the possibility of either complete or partial learning generally reduces the level of global welfare that can be achieved from forming an IEA relative to no learning. That literature regards uncertainty as a parameter common to all countries, so that countries are identical ex ante as well as ex post. In this paper we extend the literature to the case where there is no correlation between damage costs across countries; each country is uncertain about a particular parameter (in our case the benefit-cost ratio) drawn from a common distribution but, ex post, each country’s realized parameter value is independently drawn. Consequently, while countries remain identical ex ante, they may be heterogeneous ex post. We show that this change reinforces the negative conclusions about the effects of partial learning on international environmental agreements, but, under certain conditions, moderates the negative conclusions about the effects of complete learning.

Keywords

International environmental agreements Voluntary contributions to public goods Climate change 

References

  1. Arrow K, Fisher A (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility. Q J Econ 88: 312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46: 878–894Google Scholar
  3. Barrett S (2001) International cooperation for sale. Eur Econ Rev 45: 1835–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett S (2002) Environment and statecraft. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohringer C, Finus M (2005) An economic analysis of the kyoto agreement. In: Helm D (ed) Climate change and policy response. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Public Econ 52: 309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper R et al (1989) International cooperation in public health as a prologue to macroeconomic cooperation. In: Cooper RN (ed) Can nations agree?. Brookings Institution, Washington, pp 178–254Google Scholar
  8. Dellink R, Finus M, Olieman N (2005) The stability likelihood of an international environmental agreement. FEEM Working Paper 98.2005, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein L (1980) Decision-making and the temporal resolution of uncertainty. Int Econ Rev 21: 269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finus M (2001) Game theory and international environmental cooperation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster K, Vecchia P, Repacholi M (2000) Science and the precautionary principle. Science 288: 979–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gollier C, Jullien B, Treich N (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the Precautionary Principle. J Public Econ 75: 229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henry C (1974a) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. Am Econ Rev 64: 1006–1012Google Scholar
  14. Henry C (1974b) Option values in economics of irreplaceable assets. Rev Econ Stud 41(S): 89–104Google Scholar
  15. Ingham A, Ulph A (2005) Uncertainty, irreversibility, precaution, and the social cost of carbon. In: Helm D (ed) Climate change and policy response. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Karp L (Mar 17, 2010) The effect of learning on membership and welfare in an international environmental agreement. unpublished manuscript, Ag & Resource Economics Dept., University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolstad C (1996a) Fundamental irreversibilities in stock externalities. J Public Econ 60: 221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolstad C (1996b) Learning and stock effects in environmental regulations: the case of greenhouse gas emissions. J Environ Econ Manag 31: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolstad C (2007) Systematic uncertainty in self-enforcing international environmental agreements. J Environ Econ Manag 53: 68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolstad C, Ulph A (2008) Learning and international environmental agreements. Clima Change 89: 125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Na S-L, Shin HS (1998) International environmental agreements under uncertainty. Oxf Econ Pap 50: 173–185Google Scholar
  22. Narain U, Fisher A, Hanemann M (2007) The irreversibility effect in environmental decisionmaking. Environ Resour Econ 38: 391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ulph A (2004) Stable international environmental agreements with a stock pollutant, uncertainty and learning. J Risk Uncertain 29: 53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ulph A, Maddison D (1997) Uncertainty, learning and international environmental policy coordination. Environ Resour Econ 9: 451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ulph A, Ulph D (1996) Who gains from learning about global warming?. In: Ierland Ev, Gorka K (eds) The economics of atmospheric pollution. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ulph A, Ulph D (1997) Global warming, irreversibility and learning. Econ J 107: 636–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young O (1994) International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Bren SchoolUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Sustainable Consumption InstituteUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations