Advertisement

Game Theoretic Modeling in Environmental and Resource Economics

  • Hassan BenchekrounEmail author
  • Ngo Van Long
Living reference work entry

Abstract

We cover applications of game theory in environmental and resource economics with a particular emphasis on noncooperative transboundary pollution and resource games. Both flow and stock pollutants are considered. Equilibrium concepts in static and dynamic games are reviewed. We present an application of game theoretical tools related to the formation and sustainability of cooperation in transboundary pollution games. We discuss the analytical tools relevant for the case of a stock pollutant and offer an application related to the optimal institutional arrangement to regulate a pollutant when several jurisdictions are involved.

Keywords

Nash equilibrium Dynamic game Grand coalition Equilibrium payoff International environmental agreement 

References

  1. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benchekroun H, Long NV (2011) Static and dynamic games in environmental and resource economics. In: Batabayal A, Peter Nijkamp P (eds) Research tools in natural resource and environmental economics. World Scientific, HackensackGoogle Scholar
  3. Benchekroun H, Halsema A, Withagen C (2009) On nonrenewable resource oligopolies: the asymmetric case. J Econ Dyn Control 33:1867–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucovetsky S (1991) Asymmetric tax competition. J Urban Econ 30(2):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucovetsky S, Wilson J (1991) Tax competition with two tax instruments. Reg Sci Urban Econ 21(3):333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dockner E, Long NV (1993) International pollution control: cooperative versus non-cooperative strategies. J Environ Econ Manag 25:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dockner EJ, Jorgensen S, Long NV, Sorger G (2000) Differential games in economics and management science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaudet G, Long NV (1994) On the effects of the distribution of initial endowments in a non-renewable resource duopoly. J Econ Dyn Control 18:1189–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huizinga H, Nielsen SB (1997) Capital income and profit taxation with foreign ownership of firms. J Int Econ 42:149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jenson R, Thomas EF (1991) Debt in a model of tax competition. Reg Sci Urban Econ 21:371–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jorgensen S, Martin-Herran G, Zaccour G (2010) Dynamic games in the economics and management of pollution. Environ Model Assess 15:433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-010-9221-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koethenbuerger M, Lockwood B (2010) Does tax competition promote growth? J Econ Dyn Control 34(2):191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee K (1997) Tax competition with imperfectly mobile capital. J Urban Econ 42:222–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leonard D, Long NV (1992) Optimal control theory and static optimization in economics. Cambridge University Press, New York/Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. List JA, Mason CF (1999) Spatial aspects of pollution control when pollutants have synergistic effects: evidence from a differential game with asymmetric information. Ann Reg Sci 33(4):439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. List JA, Mason CF (2001) Optimal institutional arrangements for transboundary pollutants in a second-best world: evidence from a differential game with asymmetric players. J Environ Econ Manag 42(3):277–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Long NV (1992) Pollution control: a differential game approach. Ann Oper Res 37:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Long NV (2010) A survey of dynamic games in economics. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long NV (2011) Dynamic games in the economics of natural resources: a survey. Dyn Games Appl 1(1):115–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reinganum JF, Stokey NL (1985) Oligopoly extraction of a common property natural resource: the importance of period of commitment in dynamic games. Int Econ Rev 26:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubio S, Ulph A (2006) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements revisited. Oxf Econ Pap 58(2):233–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Selten R (1975) Reexamination of perfectness concepts for equilibrium points in extensive form games. Int J Game Theory 4(1):25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stigler G (1965) The tenable range of functions of local government. In: Phelps ES (ed) Private wants and public needs. W. W. Norton, New York, pp 167–176Google Scholar
  24. Turnovsky SJ (2000) Methods of macroeconomic dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. van der Ploeg F, de Zeeuw AJ (1992) International aspects of pollution control. Environ Res Econ 2:117–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang Y-Q (1999) Taxes under fiscal competition: stackelberg equilibrium and optimality. Am Econ Rev 89(4):947–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wildasin DE (2002) Fiscal competition in space and time? J Public Econ 87:2571–2588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wildasin DE (2011) Fiscal competition for imperfectly-mobile labor and capital: a comparative dynamic analysis. J Pub Econ, Elsevier, 95(11):1312–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson J (1991) Tax competition with interregional difference in factor endowments. Reg Sci Urban Econ 21(3):423–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zodrow GR, Mieszkowski P (1986) Pigou, tiebout, property taxation, and the under-provision of local public goods. J Urban Econ 19:356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and CIREQMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations