Skip to main content
Log in

International Environmental Agreements with Asymmetric Countries

  • Published:
Computational Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper investigates the stability of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) in a pollution abatement model with a quadratic cost function. We suppose a two stage game, in which in the first stage each country decides whether or not to join the agreement while, in the second stage, the quantity of pollution abatement is chosen. Agents may act cooperatively, building coalitions and acting according to the interest of the coalition, or they make their choices taking care of their individual interest only. We consider two kinds of countries: the first type are industrially advanced, namely developed countries, while the second type are the less developed, namely developing countries. About environmental preservation, the developed countries are characterized by a higher measure of the environmental awareness than developing ones. We provide a new graphic way to visualise results about stable coalitions of different sizes taking into account several environmental awareness values. Moreover, we present a handy Maple algorithm to determine both the optimal costs for each country and the coalitions’ stability with an arbitrary number of developed and developing countries. Finally, we introduce an ex-post transfer scheme in order to expand a generic coalition to the grand coalition which reaches the greatest abatement level and the lowest aggregate costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barrett S. (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxford Economic Paper 46: 878–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Botteon M., Carraro C. (2001) Environmental coalitions with heterogenous coutries: Burden sharing and carbon leakage. In: Ulph A. (eds) Environmental policy, international agreements, and international trade. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraro C., Siniscalco D. (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. Journal of Public Economics 52: 309–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carraro C., Eyckmans J., Finus M. (2006) Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements. Review of International Organizations 1: 379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chander P., Tulkens H. (1995) A core-theoretic solution for the design of cooperative agreements on transfrontier pollution. International Tax and Public Finance 2: 279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou P. B., Sylla C. (2008) The formation of an international environmental agreement as a two-stage exclusive cartel formation game with transferable utilities. International Environmental Agreements 8: 317–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aspremont C., Jacquemin J., Gadszeweiz J., Weymark J. (1983) On the stability of collusive price leadership. Canadian Journal of Economics 16: 17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Zeeuw A. (2008) Dynamic effects on the stability of international environmental agreements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55: 163–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantoudi E., Sartzetakis E. (2006) Stable international environmental agreements: An analytical approach. Journal of public economic theory 8(2): 247–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finus M., Eyckmans J. (2006) Coalition formation in a global warming game: How the design of protocols affects the success of environmental treaty-making. Natural Resource Modeling 19(3): 323–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Finus M., von Ierland E., Dellink R. (2006) Stability of climate coalitions in a cartel formation game. Economics of Governance 7: 271–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoel M. (1992) International environmental conventions: The case of uniform reductions of emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2: 141–159

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinty M. (2007) International environmental agreements among asymmetric nations. Oxford Economic Paper 59: 45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W. D., Yang Z. (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. American Economic Association 86(4): 741–765

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio S. J., Ulph A. (2006) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements revisited. Oxford Economic Papers 58: 233–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáiz M. E., Hendrix E. M. T., Olieman N. J. (2006) On the computation of stability in multiple coalition formation games. Computational Economics 28: 251–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol R. S. J. (2001) Climate coalitions in an integrated assessment model. Computational Economics 8: 159–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Villani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biancardi, M., Villani, G. International Environmental Agreements with Asymmetric Countries. Comput Econ 36, 69–92 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-010-9197-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-010-9197-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation