IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v44y2001i5p603-628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global Management of Whales as a Mixed Good and Shared Resource: Bargaining and Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Massimiliano Mazzanti

Abstract

The global management of whale species, which are here defined as an economic mixed good, is addressed by means of economic theory of bargaining and institution making. Analysis is focused on: (1) why and how it is important to take account of both (consumptive) use and non-use values when we cope with international environmental agreements (IEAs) on whales and global mixed goods; (2) the role and nature of institutions dealing with such global issues; and (3) the role of bargaining between conflicting interests as a focal feature of the institution-making process. Co-operative and non-co-operative solutions are discussed, together with instruments aimed at achieving co-operation. The study has both positive and normative implications, as far as international conventions on whales are concerned. Such institutions should internalize both ecological and economic issues. Developing the results of previous work, which argues that whale management should take into account the total value of the species in order to obtain an optimum vector of stock and harvest, a theory of two-agents bargaining is added to the picture and a normative analysis of institutions is attempted. Using natural resource economic theory, a model representing how the International Whaling Commission (IWC) currently works is attempted. The weakness, instability and possible inefficiency of the current IEA are underlined, and the paper then highlights how economic efficiency could be enhanced if monetary transfers were allowed. The ethical implications of monetary compensation are considered, together with economic efficiency. The main result is that economic models showing that optimal dynamic management is optimal only if based on total value maximization are right but useless if proper global institutions are not reformed or created. What we need is to make economic theory operational within the realm of global institutions. On the basis of the bargaining model, the conclusion is that the IWC should be reformed, by shifting the convention goals from being narrowly consumptive value-oriented to explicitly total value-oriented, that is from a 'whaling' to a 'whale' convention. As new rules are to be developed within the convention, the possibility of introducing compensatory side payments into the bargaining arena is suggested in order to increase economic efficiency with respect to a 'ban' scenario. The limits and potentialities of economics and economic instruments are thus tested with respect to the global environmental issue of whales. Finally, insights for further necessary empirical research are discussed and proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimiliano Mazzanti, 2001. "Global Management of Whales as a Mixed Good and Shared Resource: Bargaining and Institutions," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(5), pages 603-628.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:44:y:2001:i:5:p:603-628
    DOI: 10.1080/09640560120079939
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560120079939
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640560120079939?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. TULKENS, Henry, 1997. "Cooperation vs. free riding in international environmental affairs: two approaches," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1997052, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2001. "The role of economics in global management of whales: re-forming or re-founding IWC?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 205-221, February.
    5. Carlo Carraro & Carmen Marchiori, 2003. "Stable coalitions," Chapters, in: Carlo Carraro (ed.), The Endogenous Formation of Economic Coalitions, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Pizer, William A., 2006. "The Economics of Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-06, Resources for the Future.
    7. Brian Chi-ang Lin & Siqi Zheng & Marco Rogna, 2016. "Cooperative Game Theory Applied To Ieas: A Comparison Of Solution Concepts," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 649-678, July.
    8. Parkash Chander, 2007. "The gamma-core and coalition formation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 35(4), pages 539-556, April.
    9. A. Caparrós & J.-C. Péreau & T. Tazdaït, 2004. "North-South Climate Change Negotiations: A Sequential Game with Asymmetric Information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 455-480, February.
    10. Johan Eyckmans & Henry Tulkens, 1999. "Simulating with RICE Coalitionally Stable Burden Sharing Agreements for the Climate Change Problem," CESifo Working Paper Series 228, CESifo.
    11. Porchiung Chou & Cheickna Sylla, 2008. "The formation of an international environmental agreement as a two-stage exclusive cartel formation game with transferable utilities," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 317-341, December.
    12. Carlo Carraro & Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 379-396, December.
    13. Santiago J. Rubio & Alistair Ulph, 2006. "Self-enforcing international environmental agreements revisited," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 233-263, April.
    14. VAN STEENBERGHE, Vincent, 2004. "Core-stable and equitable allocations of greenhouse gas emission permits," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2004075, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    15. Sudhir A. Shah, 2006. "A Non-Cooperative Theory Of Quantity-Rationing International Transfrontier Pollution," Working papers 143, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:44:y:2001:i:5:p:603-628. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.