Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Will Markets Direct Investments Under the Kyoto Protocol? Lessons from the Activities Implemented Jointly Pilots

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries can meet treaty obligations by investing in projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases elsewhere. Prior to ratification, treaty participants agreed to launch country-based pilot projects, referred to collectively as Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ), to test novel aspects of the project-related provisions. Relying on a ten-year history of projects, we investigate the determinants of AIJ investment. Our findings suggest that review-agency preferences related to national political objectives and possibly deeper cultural ties influenced project selection and limited the number of AIJ projects. Bilateral ties also appear to have affected investment decisions directly, possibly because of related transaction costs. The results suggest an investment process different from the assumptions that underlie well-known estimates of cost-savings related to the Protocol’s flexibility mechanisms. We conclude that if approaches developed under the AIJ programs to approve projects are retained, the scale of investment under Kyoto’s flexibility provisions and their cost-savings will be less than what is generally anticipated and the pattern of investment less driven by abatement costs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alesina A, Weder B (2002) Do corrupt governments receive less foreign Aid? Am Econ Rev 92(September):1126–1137. doi:10.1257/00028280260344669

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrera J, Schwarze R (2004) Does the CDM contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from the AIJ pilot phase. Int J Sustain Dev 7(4):353–368. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2004.006414

    Google Scholar 

  • Bénassy-Quéré A, Coupet M, Mayer T (2007) Institutional determinants of foreign direct investment. World Econ 30(5):764–782. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.01022.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein PMW, Montgomery D, Rutherford TF (1999) Global impacts of the Kyoto Agreement, results from the MS-MRT model. Resour Energy Econ 21(August):375–413. doi:10.1016/S0928-7655(99)00009-3

  • Bertram G (1992) Tradeable emission permits and the control of greenhouse gases. J Dev Stud 28(April):423–446. doi:10.1080/00220389208422240

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchet T, Lussis B (2006) The contribution of the Clean Development Mechanism to national climate policies. J Policy Model 28(9):981–994. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2006.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carraro C (1999) Introduction. In: Carraro C(eds) International environmental agreements on climate change. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Cason TN, Gangadharan L (2003) Transactions costs in tradable permit markets: an experimental study of pollution market designs. J Regul Econ 23(2):145–165. doi:10.1023/A:1022254913539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti A (2001) The determinants of foreign direct investment: sensitivity analyses of cross-country regressions. Kyklos 54(1):89–114. doi:10.1111/1467-6435.00142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi CJ (1999) Global competitiveness and national attractiveness. Int Stud Manage Organ 29(1): 3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier P, Dollar D (2002) Aid allocation and poverty reduction. Eur Econ Rev 46(September):1475–1500. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00187-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullet P, Kameri-Mbote KP (1998) Joint implementation and forestry projects: conceptual and operational fallacies. Int Aff 74(2):393–408. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit AK, Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon RK, Mintzer I (1999) Introduction to the FCCC Activities Implemented Jointly Pilot. In: Dixon RK(eds) The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot: experiences and lessons learned. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley L, Montmarquette C (1976) A model of the supply of bilateral foreign aid. Am Econ Rev 66 (March): 132–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey BS, Schneider F (1986) Competing models of international lending activity. J Dev Econ 20(March):225–245. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(86)90022-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangadharan L (2000) Transaction costs in pollution markets: an empirical study. Land Econ 76(4):601–614. doi:10.2307/3146955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh P, Puri J (1994) Joint implementation of climate change commitments: opportunities and apprehensions. Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (1994) Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in Poisson and negative binomial regression models. Working paper no. EC-94-10, New York University, Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York

  • Grubb M, Vrolijk C, Brack D (1999) The Kyoto protocol: a guide and assessment. Royal Institute of International Affairs, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen LH, Andresen S (2004) NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Glob Environ Polit 4(4):54–75. doi:10.1162/glep.2004.4.4.54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn RW (1990) Regulatory constraints on environmental markets. J Public Econ 42(2):149–175. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(90)90010-F

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn RW, Hester GL (1989) Where did all the markets go? An analysis of EPA’s emissions trading program. Yale J Regul 6(1): 109–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Haites E (2004) Estimating the market potential for the Clean Development Mechanism: review of models and lessons learned. PCFplus report 19. The World Bank Carbon Finance Business PCFplus Research Program, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanafi AG (1998) Joint implementation: legal and institutional issues for an effective international program to combat climate change. HELR Harv Environ Law Rev 22(2): 441–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Heister J, Karani P, Poore K, Sinha CS, Selrod R (1999) The World Bank’s experience with the Activities Implemented Jointly Pilot Phase. In: Dixon RK(eds) The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot: experiences and lessons learned. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Jacoby HD, Prinn RG, Schmalensee R (1998) Kyoto’s unfinished business. Foreign Aff 77 (July–August): 54–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby HD, Reilly JM, McFarland JR, Paltsev S (2006) Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model. Energy Econ 28(5–6): 610–631. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2006.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jotzo F, Michaelowa A (2002) Estimating the CDM market under the Marrakech Accords. Clim Policy 2(1):179–196. doi:10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00035-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2005) Governance matters IV: governance indicators for 1996-2004. World Bank Policy Research working paper series no. 3630. World Bank, Washington

  • Kogut B, Singh H (1988) The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. J Int Bus Stud 19(3):411–432. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson DF, Parks P (1999) Risks, lessons learned and secondary markets for greenhouse gas reductions. Policy Research working paper 2090. World Bank, Washington

  • Lile R, Powell M, Toman M (1998) Implementing the Clean Development Mechanism: lessons from U.S. private-sector participation in Activities Implemented Jointly. Discussion paper no. 99-08. Resources for the Future, Washington

  • Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Löschel A (2002) Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey. Ecol Econ 43(2–3):105–126. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00209-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löschel A, Zhang ZX (2002) The economic and environmental implications of the US repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent deals in Bonn and Marrakech. Review of World Economics. Weltwirtsch Arch 138(4):711–746. doi:10.1007/BF02707659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manne AS, Richels RG (1999) The Kyoto Protocol: a cost-effective strategy for meeting environmental objectives? In: Weyant J (ed) The cost of the Kyoto Protocol: a multi-model evaluation. Energy J (special issue):1–23

  • McKibbin WJ, Wilcoxen PJ (2002) The role of economics in climate change policy. J Econ Perspect 16(Spring):107–129. doi:10.1257/0895330027283

    Google Scholar 

  • McKibbin WJ, Shackleton R, Wilcoxen PJ (1999) What to expect from an international system of tradable permits for carbon emissions. Resour Energy Econ 21(3–4):319–346. doi:10.1016/S0928-7655(99)00007-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelowa A (2007) Unilateral CDM—can developing countries finance generation of greenhouse gas emission credits on their own? Journal International Environmental Agreements: Politics. Law Econ 7(1): 17–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelowa A, Jotzo F (2005) Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the Clean Development Mechanism. Energy Policy 33(4):511–523. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelowa A, Begg K, Parkinson S, Dixon RK (1999a) Interpretation and application of FCCC AIJ Pilot Project development criteria. In: Dixon RK(eds) The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot: experiences and lessons learned. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelowa A, Dixon RK, Abron L (1999b) The AIJ project development community. In: Dixon RK(eds) The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot: experiences and lessons learned. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller RA, Mestelman S (1998) What have we learned from emissions trading experiments? Manag Decis Econ 19(June–August):225–238. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1468(199806/08)19:4/5<225::AID-MDE888>3.0.CO;2-V

  • Nordhaus WD (2001) Global warming economics. Science 294(5545):1283–1284. doi:10.1126/science.1065007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD, Boyer JG (2000) Warming the world: economic models of global warming. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • North DC (1987) Institutions, transaction costs and economic growth. Econ Inq 25(3): 419–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2006) The international development statistics (electronic). OECD, Paris

  • Painuly JP (2001) The Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading and the CDM: an analysis from developing countries perspective. Energy J 22(3): 147–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Parikh J (1995) North–South cooperation in climate change through joint implementation. Int Environ Aff 7(Winter): 22–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Petras J, Veltmeyer H (2002) Reverse aid: neo-liberalism as catalyst of regression. Dev Change 33(April):281–293. doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00254

    Google Scholar 

  • Pronk JP (2001) Aid as a catalyst. Dev Change 32(September):611–629. doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00219

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands RD (2004) Dynamics of carbon abatement in the second generation model. Energy Econ Spec Issue 26(4):721–738. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze R (2000) Activities implemented jointly: another look at the facts. Ecol Econ 32(2):255–267. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00095-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar O (2001) Cultural distance revisited: towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. J Int Bus Stud 32(3):519–535. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel JI, Licht AN, Schwartz SH (2007) Egalitarianism, cultural distance, and FDI: a new approach. Available at SSRN.com

  • Springer U (2003) The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies. Energy Econ 25(5):527–551. doi:10.1016/S0140-9883(02)00103-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins RN (1995) Transaction costs and tradeable permits. J Environ Econ Manage 29(September):133–148. doi:10.1006/jeem.1995.1036

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens B, Rose A (2002) A dynamic analysis of the marketable permits approach to global warming policy, a comparison of spatial and temporal flexibility. J Environ Econ Manage 44(July):45–69. doi:10.1006/jeem.2001.1198

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven WPMM, van Praag BMS (1981) The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: a Probit model with sample selection. J Econom 17(June):229–252. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(81)90028-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrolijk C (2000) Quantifying the Kyoto commitments. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 9(November):285–295. doi:10.1111/1467-9388.t01-1-00277

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57(2):307–333. doi:10.2307/1912557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall HJ (1995) The allocation of Official Development Assistance. J Policy Model 17(June):307–314. doi:10.1016/0161-8938(94)00031-A

  • Weyant JP (2004) Introduction and overview. Energy Econ 26(July):501–515. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.019

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalley J, Wigle RM (1991) Cutting CO 2 emissions: the effects of alternative policy approaches. Energy J 12(1): 109–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Woerdman E (2001) Emissions trading and transaction costs: analyzing the flaws in the discussion. Ecol Econ 38(August):293–304. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00169-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong K (1996) Bootstrapping Hausman’s exogeneity test. Econ Lett 53(2):139–143. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(96)00917-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WorldBank (2002) Statistical informationmanagement and analysis database (electronic).World Bank,Washington

  • World Bank (2006) Development data platform (electronic). World Bank, Washington

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA

    Donald F. Larson

  2. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Gunnar Breustedt

Authors
  1. Donald F. Larson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gunnar Breustedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald F. Larson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larson, D.F., Breustedt, G. Will Markets Direct Investments Under the Kyoto Protocol? Lessons from the Activities Implemented Jointly Pilots. Environ Resource Econ 43, 433–456 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9272-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9272-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation