Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 151, Issue 3–4, pp 565–584 | Cite as

Environmental cooperation: ratifying second-best agreements

  • Pierre CourtoisEmail author
  • Guillaume Haeringer
Article

Abstract

As an alternative to the environmental cartel approach, we assume that an international environmental agreement aims simply at providing a collective response to a perceived threat. Given this less demanding concept of cooperation and considering that most treaties become enforceable only after ratification by a sufficient number of participants, we examine the set of self-enforceable agreements. This set contains first-best but also second-best agreements that do not maximize the collective welfare of members but meet environmental and/or participative requirements. We study the properties of this set and discuss admissible values of targets and thresholds that favour economics over environmental objectives and vice versa.

Keywords

International environmental agreement Social welfare Abatement bound Self-enforcement Ratification threshold 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. d’Aspremont, C., Jacquemin, A., Gabszewicz, J., & Weymark, J. (1983). On the stability of collusive price leadership. Canadian Journal of Economics, 16, 17–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bade, S., Haeringer, G., & Renou, L. (2009). More strategies, more Nash equilibria. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 1817–1831. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagnoli, M., & Lipman, B. L. (1989). Provision of public goods: fully implementing the core through private contributions. Review of Economic Studies, 56, 583–601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagnoli, M., & Lipman, B. L. (1992). Private provision of public goods can be efficient. Public Choice, 74, 59–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, S. (1994). Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 878–894. Google Scholar
  6. Barrett, S. (2002). Consensus treaties. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 158, 529–547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty making. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Barrett, S. (2007). Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Benedick, R. E. (1998). Ozone diplomacy: new directions in safeguarding the planet (2nd edn.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Black, J., Levi, M. D., & de Meza, D. (1993). Creating a good atmosphere: minimum participation for tackling the greenhouse effect. Economica, 60, 281–293. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Böhringer, C., & Vogt, C. (2004). The dismantling of breakthrough: The Kyoto protocol as symbolic policy. European Journal of Political Economy, 20, 597–618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caparros, A., Péreau, J. C., & Tazdaït, T. (2004). North-South climate change negotiations: a sequential game with asymmetric information. Public Choice, 121, 455–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carraro, C., & Siniscalco, D. (1993). Strategies for the international protection of the environment. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 309–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carraro, C., Marchiori, C., & Oreffice, S. (2009). Endogenous minimum participation in international environmental treaties. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42, 411–425. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1996). The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Google Scholar
  16. Currarini, S., & Tulkens, H. (2004). Stable international agreements on transfontier pollution with ratification constraints. In C. Carraro & V. Fragnelli (Eds.), Game practice and the environment (pp. 9–36). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Google Scholar
  17. Diamantoudi, E., & Sartzetakis, E. (2006). Stable international environmental agreements: an analytical approach. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8(2), 247–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dietrich, W. F. (1995). The challenge of selecting environmental policy goals: case studies regarding the use of critical levels, CSIA Discussion Paper 95-05, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Google Scholar
  19. Dixit, A., & Olson, M. (2000). Does voluntary participation undermine the Coase theorem? Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 309–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finus, M. (2001). Game theory and international environmental cooperation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  21. Finus, M. (2008). Game theoretic research on the design of international environmental agreements: insights, critical remarks and future challenges. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 2, 1–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finus, M., & Maus, S. (2008). Modesty may pay! Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10(5), 801–826. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frey, B. S. (1997). The public choice of international organizations. In D. Mueller (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice (pp. 106–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Grubb, M., Vrolijk, C., & Brack, D. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol, a guide and assessment. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. Google Scholar
  25. Harstad, B. (2006). Flexible integration? Mandatory and minimum participation rules. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 108(4), 683–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoel, M. (1992). International environment conventions: the case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environmental & Resource Economics, 2, 141–159. Google Scholar
  27. Kohnz, S. (2005). Ratification quotas in international contracts: an example of emission reduction. Mimeo, Yale University. Google Scholar
  28. McBride, M. (2006). Discrete public goods under threshold uncertainty. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6–7), 1181–1199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nitzan, S., & Romano, R. (1990). Private provision of a discrete public good with uncertain cost. Journal of Public Economics, 42, 357–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nordhaus, W. (2007). The challenge of global warming, economics model and environmental policy in the DICE 2007 Model. Mimeo, Yale University. Google Scholar
  31. Okada, O. (1993). The possibility of cooperation in an n-person Prisoners’ dilemma with institutional arrangements. Public Choice, 77(3), 629–656. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palfrey, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 24, 171–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patt, A. (1999). Separating analysis from politics: acid rain in Europe. Review of Policy Research, 16(34), 104–137. Google Scholar
  34. Rutz, S. (2002). International environmental agreements: much ado about nothing? Ph.D thesis. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Google Scholar
  35. Sandler, T., & Hartley, K. (2001). Economics of alliances: the lessons for collective action. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 869–896. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suleiman, R. (1997). Provision of step-level public goods under uncertainty: a theoretical analysis. Rationality and Society, 9, 163–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaubel, R. (1986). A public choice approach to international organization. Public Choice, 51, 39–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vaubel, R., Dreher, A., & Soylu, U. (2007). Staff growth in international organizations: a principal-agent problem? An empirical analysis. Public Choice, 133, 275–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weikard, H. P., Wangler, L., & Freytag, A. (2009). Minimum participation rules with heterogeneous countries. Jena Economic Research Papers in Economics 2009-077. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of EconomicsINRAMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Dept. of EconomicsUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations