IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2004s-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Face to Face Negotiation to Overcome the Nimby Syndrome: Theory and Experimental Design

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Marchetti

Abstract

In recent decade, community after community has refused to accept facilities that require large amounts of land and generate local environmental costs such as airports, trash disposal plants or waste incinerators. Faced with this problem economists have used several methods such as lotteries, auctions or insurance policies. However, all those mechanisms have theoretical shortcomings. Therefore, we propose an approach based on face to face negotiation between elected representative. In order to reduce transaction costs, we introduce an arbitrator that proposes surplus distribution and a host community. The main question in this paper is to determine which distribution it has to propose to quickly reach an agreement. To answer this question we revise the traditional structure of cooperative games and explore the predictive power of three generalized solutions by implementing laboratory bargaining experiments Lors de la localisation d'équipements générateurs de nuisances tels que les décharges ou les incinérateurs, la commune d'accueil subit l'ensemble des coûts tandis que les autres communes perçoivent des bénéfices. Ainsi, fréquemment, les riverains du projet s'opposent à l'implantation et les projets de localisation n'aboutissent pas. Confrontés à ce problème, les économistes ont utilisés de nombreuses méthodes telles que les loteries, les enchères ou les assurances. Cependant, tous ces mécanismes ne parviennent pas à réduire l'opposition des riverains. Par conséquent, nous proposons une approche basée sur une négociation face à face entre les représentants des communes. Dans le but de réduire les coûts de transactions, nous introduisons un arbitre qui propose des répartitions de surplus et une commune d'accueil. La question principale dans cet article est de déterminer quelle répartition ce dernier doit proposer pour obtenir un accord rapidement. Pour répondre à cette question, nous révisons la structure traditionnelle des jeux coopératifs et testons le pouvoir prédictif de trois concepts de solution généralisés grâce à la réalisation d'expériences en laboratoire

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Marchetti, 2004. "Face to Face Negotiation to Overcome the Nimby Syndrome: Theory and Experimental Design," CIRANO Working Papers 2004s-53, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2004s-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2004s-53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jehiel, Philippe & Moldovanu, Benny, 1995. "Negative Externalities May Cause Delay in Negotiation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1321-1335, November.
    2. Kunreuther, Howard & Kleindorfer, Paul R, 1986. "A Sealed-Bid Auction Mechanism for Siting Noxious Facilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 295-299, May.
    3. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1969. "The nucleolus of a characteristic function game," LIDAM Reprints CORE 44, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. O'Sullivan Arthur, 1993. "Voluntary Auctions for Noxious Facilities: Incentives to Participate and the Efficiency of Siting Decisions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 12-26, July.
    5. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    6. David Goetze, 1982. "A decentralized mechanism for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 361-370, January.
    7. Kunreuther, Howard & Kleindorfer, Paul & Knez, Peter J. & Yaksick, Rudy, 1987. "A compensation mechanism for siting noxious facilities: Theory and experimental design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 371-383, December.
    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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2003:i:22:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Martin Besfamille & Jean-Marie Lozachmeur, 2010. "NIMBY and mechanism design under different constitutional constraints," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 17(2), pages 114-132, April.
    3. Lejano, Raul P. & Davos, Climis A., 2002. "Fair Share: Siting Noxious Facilities as a Risk Distribution Game under Nontransferable Utility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 251-266, March.
    4. Minehart, Deborah & Neeman, Zvika, 2002. "Effective Siting of Waste Treatment Facilities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 303-324, March.
    5. Keith Waehrer, 2003. "Hazardous Facility Siting When Cost Information Is Private: An Application of Multidimensional Mechanism Design," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(4), pages 605-622, October.
    6. Per Fredriksson, 2000. "The Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities in Federal Systems: The Political Economy of NIMBY," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(1), pages 75-87, January.
    7. Alberti, Federica & Mantilla, César, 2020. "Provision of noxious facilities using a market-like mechanism: A simple implementation in the lab," Working papers 35, Red Investigadores de Economía.
    8. Bård Harstad, 2012. "Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(1), pages 77-115.
    9. Pérez-Castrillo, David & Quérou, Nicolas, 2012. "Smooth multibidding mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 420-438.
    10. Ferraz, Eduardo & Mantilla, César, 2020. "Lindahl vs. Lindahl: Optimal siting and sizing of a noxious facility," Working papers 65, Red Investigadores de Economía.
    11. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram, 2015. "Is utility transferable? a revealed preference analysis," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), January.
    12. Roger A McCain, 2013. "Value Solutions in Cooperative Games," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8528, October.
    13. Roberta Occhilupo & Giuliana Palumbo & Paolo Sestito, 2011. "Siting public facilities: a theoretical and empirical analysis of the Nimby syndrome in Italy," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 91, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    14. Garrone, Paola & Groppi, Angelamaria, 2012. "Siting locally-unwanted facilities: What can be learnt from the location of Italian power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 176-186.
    15. Denis Lescop, 2005. "Provision of club goods: cost sharing and selection of a provider," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(25), pages 1-13.
    16. Jens Gudmundsson & Jens Leth Hougaard & Chiu Yu Ko, 2022. "Sharing sequentially triggered losses: Automatic conflict resolution through smart contracts," IFRO Working Paper 2020/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Philippe Jehiel, 1998. "Enchères et externalités," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 132(1), pages 83-92.
    18. Bruno Frey & Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(3), pages 377-401, September.
    19. Bohm, Peter, 2003. "Experimental evaluations of policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 437-460, Elsevier.
    20. Denis Lescop, 2007. "Optimal mechanisms for siting noxious facilities," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 10(4), pages 273-284, March.
    21. Laura Abrardi & Luca Colombo & Pier Angelo Mori, 2016. "Customer Ownership And Quality Provision In Public Services Under Asymmetric Information," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1499-1518, July.

    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:cir:cirwor:2004s-53. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.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.