IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v1y2001i4p517-520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of national governments for or against the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol: a Banzhaf index analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fabian Wagner
  • Niklas H�hne

Abstract

The recent announcement by the USA to withdraw their support for the Kyoto Protocol has drawn attention to the conditions under which the Protocol will enter into force: at least 55 member states to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have to ratify the Protocol, and those industrialized countries (Annex-I parties) that ratify it have to make up for at least 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions of this group in 1990. In this article, we analyze the a priori decision making power of individual parties, or groups of these, for the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, utilizing a mathematical approach known as the Banzhaf index. The results of our analysis suggest that the conditions for the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol give more influence to the USA than might have been anticipated: while the USA has more voting power than the relative share of emissions suggests, all other Annex-I parties have less. Based on a mathematical model, this analysis shows that the Banzhaf index is a more realistic indicator of voting power than the bare numbers fixed in the Kyoto Protocol. This method could be used more extensively in the future for the analysis of voting procedures, in particular within the UNFCCC.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabian Wagner & Niklas H�hne, 2001. "Influence of national governments for or against the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol: a Banzhaf index analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(4), pages 517-520, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:1:y:2001:i:4:p:517-520
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2001.0151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2001.0151
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3763/cpol.2001.0151?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. Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover, 1998. "The Measurement of Voting Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1489.
    2. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rahhal Lahrach & Jérôme Le Tensorer & Vincent Merlin, 2005. "Who benefits from the US withdrawal of the Kyoto Protocol? An application of the MMEA method to measure power," Post-Print halshs-00010171, HAL.

    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. Matija Kovacic & Claudio Zoli, 2021. "Ethnic distribution, effective power and conflict," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 257-299, August.
    2. Mikel Alvarez-Mozos & José María Alonso-Meijide & María Gloria Fiestras-Janeiro, 2016. "The Shapley-Shubik Index in the Presence of Externalities," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2016/342, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    3. Monisankar Bishnu & Sonali Roy, 2012. "Hierarchy of players in swap robust voting games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(1), pages 11-22, January.
    4. Zaporozhets, Vera & García-Valiñas, María & Kurz, Sascha, 2016. "Key drivers of EU budget allocation: Does power matter?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 57-70.
    5. Silvia Fedeli & Francesco Forte, 2001. "Voting Powers and the Efficiency of the Decision-Making Process in the European Council of Ministers," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 5-38, July.
    6. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2020. "How relevant is dividend policy under low shareholder protection?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. F. Barthélémy & M. Martin, 2005. "Répartition des sièges au sein des structures intercommunales du Val d’Oise," THEMA Working Papers 2005-16, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    8. Le Breton, Michel & Montero, Maria & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2012. "Voting power in the EU council of ministers and fair decision making in distributive politics," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 159-173.
    9. Fabrice Barthelemy & Mathieu Martin, 2011. "A Comparison Between the Methods of Apportionment Using Power Indices: the Case of the US Presidential Elections," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 101-102, pages 87-106.
    10. Friedman, Jane & Parker, Cameron, 2018. "The conditional Shapley–Shubik measure for ternary voting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 379-390.
    11. Serguei Kaniovski, 2008. "The exact bias of the Banzhaf measure of power when votes are neither equiprobable nor independent," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 281-300, August.
    12. René Brink & Frank Steffen, 2012. "Axiomatizations of a positional power score and measure for hierarchies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 757-787, June.
    13. Eric Guerci & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Naoki Watanabe & Gabriele Esposito & Xiaoyan Lu, 2014. "A methodological note on a weighted voting experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 827-850, December.
    14. Manfred Holler & Rie Ono & Frank Steffen, 2001. "Constrained Monotonicity and the Measurement of Power," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 383-395, June.
    15. Carreras, Francesc, 2005. "A decisiveness index for simple games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 370-387, June.
    16. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2007. "Influence Indices," Post-Print halshs-00142479, HAL.
    17. Fabrice Barthelemy & Mathieu Martin & Bertrand Tchantcho, 2011. "Some conjectures on the two main power indices," THEMA Working Papers 2011-14, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    18. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2010. "Different Approaches to Influence Based on Social Networks and Simple Games," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00514850, HAL.
    19. Heinemann, Friedrich, 2003. "The political economy of EU enlargement and the Treaty of Nice," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 17-31, March.
    20. Edwards, Jeremy S.S. & Weichenrieder, Alfons J., 2009. "Control rights, pyramids, and the measurement of ownership concentration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 489-508, October.

    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:tcpoxx:v:1:y:2001:i:4:p:517-520. 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/tcpo20 .

    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.