IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pubeco/v87y2003i9-10p2049-2067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperation in international environmental negotiations due to a preference for equity

Author

Listed:
  • Lange, Andreas
  • Vogt, Carsten

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that cooperation in international environmental negotiations can be explained by preferences for equity. Within a N-country prisoner?s dilemma in which agents can either cooperate or defect, in addition to the standard non-cooperative equilibrium, cooperation of a large fraction or even of all countries can establish a Nash equilibrium. In an emission game, however, where countries can choose their abatement level continuously, equity preferences cannot improve upon the standard inefficient Nash-equilibrium. Finally, in a two stage game on coalition formation, the presence of equity-interested countries increases the coalition size and leads to efficiency gains. Here, even a stable agreement with full cooperation can be reached.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lange, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten, 2003. "Cooperation in international environmental negotiations due to a preference for equity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 2049-2067, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:87:y:2003:i:9-10:p:2049-2067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047-2727(02)00044-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel, 2008. "Self-centered Fairness in Games with More Than Two Players," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 59, pages 531-540, Elsevier.
    2. Parkash Chander & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "The Core of an Economy with Multilateral Environmental Externalities," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 153-175, Springer.
    3. Murdoch, James C. & Sandler, Todd, 1997. "The voluntary provision of a pure public good: The case of reduced CFC emissions and the Montreal Protocol," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 331-349, February.
    4. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    5. Carraro, Carlo & Siniscalco, Domenico, 1993. "Strategies for the international protection of the environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 309-328, October.
    6. Barrett, Scott, 1994. "Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 878-894, Supplemen.
    7. Shogren, Jason F. & Toman, Michael, 2000. "Climate Change Policy," Discussion Papers 10767, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lange, Andreas, 2004. "The Impact of Equity-preferences on the Stability of Heterogeneous International Agreements," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-50, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Carraro, Carlo & Bosello, Francesco & Buchner, Barbara & Raggi, Davide, 2003. "Can Equity Enhance Efficiency? Some Lessons from Climate Negotiations," CEPR Discussion Papers 3606, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2007. "Measures to enhance the success of global climate treaties," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 73-97, March.
    4. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2004. "An Empirical Assessment of Measures to Enhance the Success of Global Climate Treaties," Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete0406, KU Leuven, Department of Economics - Research Group Energy, Transport and Environment.
    5. Marrouch, W. & Ray Chaudhuri, A., 2011. "International Environmental Agreements in the Presence of Adaptation," Other publications TiSEM 247443ba-1022-47e0-9900-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Michael Finus & Stefan Maus, 2008. "Modesty May Pay!," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(5), pages 801-826, October.
    7. Charles D. Kolstad, 2014. "International Environmental Agreements among Heterogeneous Countries with Social Preferences," NBER Working Papers 20204, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Juan-Carlos Altamirano-Cabrera & Michael Finus, 2006. "Permit Trading and Stability of International Climate Agreements," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 19-47, May.
    9. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    10. Rogna, Marco & Vogt, Carla J., 2021. "Accounting for inequality aversion can justify the 2° C goal," Ruhr Economic Papers 925, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Effrosyni Diamantoudi & Eftichios S. Sartzetakis, 2006. "Stable International Environmental Agreements: An Analytical Approach," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 8(2), pages 247-263, May.
    12. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2024. "How Important Are IEAs for Mitigation If Countries Are of the Homo Moralis Type?," CESifo Working Paper Series 11040, CESifo.
    13. Nagashima, Miyuki & Dellink, Rob & van Ierland, Ekko & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2009. "Stability of international climate coalitions -- A comparison of transfer schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1476-1487, March.
    14. Nahid Masoudi, 2022. "Designed to be stable: international environmental agreements revisited," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 659-672, December.
    15. BRECHET, Thierry & GERARD, François & TULKENS, Henry, 2007. "Climate coalitions: a theoretical and computational appraisal," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2007003, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Henry Van Egteren & Jianmin Tang, 1997. "Maxium Victim Benefit: A Fair Division Process in Transboundary Pollution Problems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(4), pages 363-386, December.
    17. GERMAIN, Marc & TOINT, Philippe & TULKENS, Henry & DE ZEEUW, Aart, 1998. "Transfers to sustain core-theoretic cooperation in international stock pollutant control," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1998032, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    18. Arthur Caplan & Emilson Silva, 2007. "An equitable, efficient and implementable scheme to control global carbon dioxide emissions," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(3), pages 263-279, June.
    19. Charles Mason, 2019. "On Climate Agreements with Asymmetric Countries: Theory and Experimental Results," Working Papers 2019.22, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    20. Alejandro Caparrós & Jean-Christophe Péreau, 2017. "Multilateral versus sequential negotiations over climate change," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 365-387.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • Q00 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:87:y:2003:i:9-10:p:2049-2067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.