Environmental cooperation: ratifying second-best agreements

An Erratum to this article was published on 07 February 2012

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bade, S., Haeringer, G., & Renou, L. (2009). More strategies, more Nash equilibria. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 1817–1831.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bagnoli, M., & Lipman, B. L. (1992). Private provision of public goods can be efficient. Public Choice, 74, 59–78.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carraro, C., Marchiori, C., & Oreffice, S. (2009). Endogenous minimum participation in international environmental treaties. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42, 411–425.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  19. Dixit, A., & Olson, M. (2000). Does voluntary participation undermine the Coase theorem? Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 309–335.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Finus, M., & Maus, S. (2008). Modesty may pay! Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10(5), 801–826.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nitzan, S., & Romano, R. (1990). Private provision of a discrete public good with uncertain cost. Journal of Public Economics, 42, 357–370.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  35. Sandler, T., & Hartley, K. (2001). Economics of alliances: the lessons for collective action. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 869–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Suleiman, R. (1997). Provision of step-level public goods under uncertainty: a theoretical analysis. Rationality and Society, 9, 163–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vaubel, R. (1986). A public choice approach to international organization. Public Choice, 51, 39–58.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Weikard, H. P., Wangler, L., & Freytag, A. (2009). Minimum participation rules with heterogeneous countries. Jena Economic Research Papers in Economics 2009-077.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Courtois.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-9918-z.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Courtois, P., Haeringer, G. Environmental cooperation: ratifying second-best agreements. Public Choice 151, 565–584 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9759-6

Download citation

Keywords

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