IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ucbecw/198604.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Burden Sharing and Public Good Investments in Policy Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Rausser, Gordon
  • Simon, Leo

Abstract

Any attempt to reform existing public policies or to implement new policies faces an arduous negotiation process and the tyranny of the status quo. One of the basic premises of the Uruguay Round of the GATT is that the reform of border policies could not be sustained without dramatic modification of internal agricultural policies. In October of 1989, the United States tabled a proposal for reforming internal policies of the agricultural sector throughout GATT signatory countries. In essence, this tabled proposal specified policies in terms of three regimes: red light, green light, and yellow light policies. Red light policies were to be forbidden; green light policies were to be promoted; and yellow light policies were to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Quite obviously, green light policies include public good provisions that promote economic growth and do not involve coupled distortionary transfers.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 1992. "Burden Sharing and Public Good Investments in Policy Reform," CUDARE Working Papers 198604, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ucbecw:198604
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.198604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/198604/files/agecon-cal-635.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.198604?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Fiorina, Morris P. & Plott, Charles R., 1978. "Committee Decisions under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 575-598, June.
    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. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2023. "An experiment on the Nash program: A comparison of two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 88-104.
    2. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2021. "An Experiment on the Nash Program: Comparing two Mechanisms Implementing the Shapley Value," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-07, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Ambrus, Attila & Greiner, Ben & Pathak, Parag A., 2015. "How individual preferences are aggregated in groups: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2022. "An experiment on the Nash program: Comparing two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," ISER Discussion Paper 1175, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    5. Thomas R. Palfrey, 2005. "Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy," Working Papers 91, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    6. Thomas R. Palfrey, 2005. "Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy," Working Papers 91, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    7. repec:pri:cepsud:111palfrey is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Osiris J. Parcero, 2009. "Optimal country's policy towards multinationals when local regions can choose between firm-specific and non-firm-specific policies," Working Papers 2009/34, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    9. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    10. Cheryl L. Eavey, 1987. "Bureaucratic Competition and Agenda Control," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(3), pages 503-524, September.
    11. Lohmann, Susanne, 1997. "Partisan control of the money supply and decentralized appointment powers," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 225-246, May.
    12. Eromenko, Igor, 2010. "Accession to the WTO. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: the Case of Ukraine. Part I," MPRA Paper 67476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Chia-Ying Chang & Chien-Chieh Huang & Ping Wang, 2000. "Fight Fire with Fire: A Model of Pollution and Growth with Cooperative Settlement," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0010, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    14. Dasgupta Siddhartha & Devadoss Stephen, 2002. "Equilibrium Contracts In a Bilateral Monopoly with Unequal Bargaining Powers," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 43-71.
    15. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.
    16. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    17. Britz, V. & Herings, P.J.J. & Predtetchinski, A., 2012. "On the convergence to the Nash bargaining solution for endogenous bargaining protocols," Research Memorandum 030, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    18. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "The Politics of Free-Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 667-690, September.
    19. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Sergei Guriev, 2008. "Control Rights over Intellectual Property: Corporate Venturing and Bankruptcy Regimes," Working Papers w0118, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
    20. Carlo Carraro & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandra Sgobbi, 2005. "Applications of Negotiation Theory to Water Issues," Working Papers 2005.65, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    21. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Aldo Montesano, 2015. "Bargaining over Strategies of Non-Cooperative Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, August.

    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:ags:ucbecw:198604. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    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.