Skip to main content

Potential Contributions of Political Science to Environmental Economics

Abstract

While political science has much to offer, at least some of its contributions might be difficult to incorporate into economic models. Nevertheless, we argue that environmental economics might benefit from supplementing, combining, or sometimes even replacing the rational choice approach with other approaches commonly used in political science. We develop our argument by examining three core components of political science analysis: ideas, power, and institutions. For each component we review political science approaches and propositions with a view to determining “what’s in it” for environmental economics.

References

  • Aakre S, Hovi J (2010) Emission trading: participation enforcement determines the need for compliance enforcement. European Union Politics 11(3): 427–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott KW, Snidal D (1998) Why states act through formal international organizations. J Conflict Resolut 42: 3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aidt TS (1998) Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy. J Public Econ 69(1): 1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith D (1995) Campaign contributions and access. Am Polit Sci Rev 89: 566–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austen-Smith D (1997) Interest groups: money, information and influence. In: Mueller DC (eds) Perspectives in public choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (2008) Political science and beyond: presidential address to the American political science association. Perspect Polit 6: 3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R, Keohane RO (1985) Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions. In: Oye KA (eds) Cooperation under anarchy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach SB, Lawler EJ (1984) Bargaining: power, tactics, and outcomes. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhouse RE, Medema SG (2009) On the definition of economics. J Econ Perspect 23: 221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, A, Peters, BG (eds) (1992) Politics of expert advice: creating, using and manipulating scientific knowledge for public policy. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett M, Duvall R (2005) Power in global governance. In: Barnett M, Duvall R (eds) Power in global governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (2003) Environment and statecraft. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (2007) Why cooperate? The incentive to supply global public goods. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S, Stavins R (2003) Increasing compliance and participation in international climate change agreements. Int Environ Agr Polit Law Econ 3: 349–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry B (1980) Is it better to be powerful or lucky: part 1. Polit Stud 28: 183–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1976) The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard S, Asokan S, Warrell H, Lemer J (2009) Which country has the greenest bail-out? Financial Times 2 March 2009

  • Biermann F, Siebenhüner B (eds) (forthcoming) Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)

  • Brack, D (2003). Monitoring the montreal protocol. In: Trevor F (ed) Verification handbook 2003. Available at: http://www.vertic.org/assets/YB03/VY03_Brack.pdf, pp 209–226

  • Breitmeier H, Young OR, Zürn M (2006) Analyzing international environmental regimes: from case study to data base. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Weiss, E, Jacobson, HK (eds) (1998) Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch PO, Jörgens H (2005) The international sources of policy convergence: explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. J Eur Public Policy 12(5): 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer CF, Loewenstein G (2004) Behavioral economics: past, present, future. In: Camerer CF, Loewenstein G, Rabin M (eds) Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamley CP (2004) Rational Herds: economic models of social learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes A, Chayes AH (1993) On compliance. Int Organ 47: 175–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chayes A, Chayes AH (1995) The new sovereignty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice source. Admin Sci Q 17: 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1973) The mathematics of collective action. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (1965) Modern political analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs GW, Jones MA (2002) Reputation, compliance, and international law. J Legal Stud XXXI(January): S95–S114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs GW, Rocke DM, Barsoom PN (1996) Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?. Int Organ 50: 379–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman MJ (1974) The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton D (1953) The political system. Alfred A. Knoph, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (1989) Nuts and bolts of the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder S, Schleiniger R (2002) Environmental tax reform: efficiency and political feasibility. Ecol Econ 42(1–2): 107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folmer H, Mouche P, Ragland S (1993) Interconnected games and international environmental problems. Environ Resour Econ 3: 313–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson PG (1997) The political economy of pollution taxes in a small open economy. J Environ Econ Manage 33(1): 44–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J (eds) (1996) The rational choice controversy. Economic models of politics reconsidered. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates S, Humes B (1997) Games, information and politics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Green D, Shapiro I (1994) The pathologies of rational choice. A critique of applications in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman GM, Helpman E (1994) Protection for sale. Am Econ Rev 84: 833–850

    Google Scholar 

  • Habeeb MW (1988) Power and tactics in international negotiation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Haftel YZ, Thompson A (2006) The independence of international organizations: concept and applications. J Conflict Resolut 50: 253–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn RW (1990) The political economy of environmental regulation: towards a unifying framework. Public Choice 65(1): 21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer MA (1995) The politics of environmental discourses: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall PA, Taylor RCR (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Polit Stud 44: 936–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison K (2007) The road not taken: climate change policy in Canada and the United States. Global Environ Polit 7: 92–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V (1997) Theories of international regimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson GM (2006) What are institutions?. J Econ Issues 40: 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger K, Knill C (2004) Competition and cooperation in environmental policy: individual and interaction effects. J Public Policy 24(1): 25–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovi J, Aakre SY (2009) Theory of participation, compliance, and enforcement in international environmental agreements. Paper presented at the International Studies Associations’ 50th Annual Convention, New York City, 15–18 February 2009

  • Howarth D (2000) Discourse. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen K (2005), Perestroika in American political science. Post-autistic Econ Rev 32(6), http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue32/Jacobsen32.htm

  • Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith HC, Sabatier PA (1999) The dynamics of policy orientated learning. In: Jenkins-Smith HC, Sabatier PA (eds) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones BD, Baumgartner FR (2005) The politics of attention: how governments prioritize problems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A, Wurzel R, Brückner L (2003) European governance and the transfer of ’New’ environmental policy instruments. Public Admin 81(3): 555–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson C, Tallberg J (2008) Institutional theory in international relations. In: Pierre J, Peters GB, Stoker G (eds) Debating institutionalism. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman A, Tversky D (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane RO, Nye JS (1977) Power and interdependence. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane RO, Martin LL (2003) Institutional theory, endogeneity, and delegation. In: Elman C, Elman M (eds) Progress in international relations theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern K, Jörgens H, Jänicke M (2001) The diffusion of environmental policy innovations: a contribution to the globalisation of environmental policy. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung Discussion Paper FS II 01–302

  • Keynes JM (1936) The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Harcourt Brace, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, alternatives and public policy. Little Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1936) Politics: who gets what, when, how. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes S (1974) Power: a radical view. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons B, Mehta J (1997) Contracts, opportunism and trust: self-interest and social orientation. Cambridge J Econ 21: 239–257

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Olsen JP (1989) Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer JJ (1995) The false promise of international institutions. Int Security 19: 5–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles EL et al (2002) Environmental regime effectiveness: confronting theory with evidence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RB (1994) Regime design matters: intentional oil pollution and treaty compliance. Int Organ 48: 425–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RB, Deane G (2009) Leaders, laggards, and institutional change (Unpublished)

  • Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (eds) The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • North CD (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates WE, Portney PR (2003) The political economy of environmental policy. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008) Environmentally related taxes and tradable permit systems in practice. OECD, Paris

  • Olson M (1968) The logic of collective action. Schocken Books, New York (first published by Harvard University Press in 1965)

  • Peters BG, Pierre J (1998) Governance without government, rethinking public administration. J Public Admin Res Theory 8: 223–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson P, Skocpol T (2002) Historical institutionalism in political science. In: Katznelson I, Milner HV (eds) Political science: the state of the discipline. W W Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Potters J, van Winden F (1992) Lobbying and asymmetric information. Public Choice 74: 269–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker WH (1986) The art of political manipulation. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokkan S (1966) Numerical democracy and corporate pluralism. In: Dahl RA (eds) Political opposition in western democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford M (1994) Institutions in economics: the old and the new institutionalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (1993) Policy change over a decade or more. In: Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier PA (eds) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle K (1986) Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. In: Weisberg HF (eds) Political science: the science of politics. Agathon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H A (1983) Reason in human affairs. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaperdas S (1996) Contest success functions. Econ Theory 7: 283–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein AA (1982) Coordination and collaboration: regimes in an anarchic world. Int Organ 36: 299–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg J (2002) Paths to compliance: enforcement, management and the European Union. Int Organ 56(3): 609–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tews K, Busch PO, Jörgens H (2003) The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments. Eur J Polit Res 42(4): 569–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen K (1999) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Ann Rev Polit Sci 2: 369–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underdal A (1998) Explaining compliance and defection: three models. Eur J Int Relat 4: 5–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underdal A (2009) Can international conferences be modeled?. In: Aggestam K, Jerneck M (eds) Diplomacy in theory and practice. Liber, Malmö

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor DG (1998) The operation and effectiveness of the Montreal protocol’s non-compliance procedure. In: Victor DG, Raustiala K, Skolnikoff EB (eds) The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: theory and evidence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JQ (1973) Political organizations. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartman IW, Rubin JZ (2000) Symmetry and asymmetry of negotiation. In: Zartman IW, Rubin JZ (eds) Power and negotiation. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the guest editors and two anonymous reviewers for many helpful comments. Frank Azevedo provided excellent editorial assistance.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Hovi.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hovi, J., Underdal, A. & Ward, H. Potential Contributions of Political Science to Environmental Economics. Environ Resource Econ 48, 391–411 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9453-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9453-7

Keywords

  • Environmental economics
  • Ideas
  • Institutions
  • Political science
  • Power