IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00010171.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who benefits from the US withdrawal of the Kyoto Protocol? An application of the MMEA method to measure power

Author

Listed:
  • Rahhal Lahrach

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Jérôme Le Tensorer

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Vincent Merlin

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Since 1992, the international community is trying to arrive at a multilateral agreement on the reduction of emissions for greenhouse gases. A collective decision mechanism was adopted in 1997: An agreement is ratified if and only if it is approved by a coalition gathering more than 55 countries. Moreover, the ratifying industrialized countries - included in the Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol - must represent a total weight corresponding to at least 55% of the total CO2 emissions of the countries of the Annex I, taking the year 1990 as a reference point.One way to study the theoretical power distribution induced by this voting procedure is to compute the Banzhaf index for each country. Firstly, the results of the computation show that the power distribution is largely heterogeneous and benefits to the United-States. Secondly, we analyze the modifications generated by the European coalition scenario in order to prove that the European strategy to act as a single block counterbalanced the US leadership. Finally, we conclude that Japan and Russia benefited from the United States withdrawal in term of a priori decisional power.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00010171
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00010171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00010171/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis Leech, 2003. "Computing Power Indices for Large Voting Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 831-837, June.
    2. Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover, 1998. "The Measurement of Voting Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1489.
    3. 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.
    4. Leech, D., 1998. "Computing Power Indices for Large Voting Games: A New Algorithm," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 510, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    5. Guillermo Owen, 1972. "Multilinear Extensions of Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-2), pages 64-79, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Straffin, Philip Jr., 1994. "Power and stability in politics," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 32, pages 1127-1151, Elsevier.
    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. Werner Kirsch & Wojciech S{l}omczy'nski & Dariusz Stolicki & Karol .Zyczkowski, 2018. "Double Majority and Generalized Brexit: Explaining Counterintuitive Results," Papers 1812.07048, arXiv.org.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Computation of Power Indices," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 644, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    4. Dennis Leech, 2013. "Power indices in large voting bodies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 61-79, April.
    5. José María Alonso-Meijide & Mikel Álvarez-Mozos & María Gloria Fiestras-Janeiro, 2015. "Power Indices and Minimal Winning Coalitions in Simple Games with Externalities Abstract: We propose a generalization of simple games to situations with coalitional externalities. The main novelty of ," UB School of Economics Working Papers 2015/328, University of Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Fabrice Barthélémy & Mathieu Martin, 2007. "Configurations study for the Banzhaf and the Shapley-Shubik indices of power," THEMA Working Papers 2007-07, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    7. André Casajus & Frank Huettner, 2019. "The Coleman–Shapley index: being decisive within the coalition of the interested," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 275-289, December.
    8. Alexander Mayer, 2018. "Luxembourg in the Early Days of the EEC: Null Player or Not?," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, May.
    9. Yuto Ushioda & Masato Tanaka & Tomomi Matsui, 2022. "Monte Carlo Methods for the Shapley–Shubik Power Index," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Josep Freixas & Montserrat Pons, 2017. "Using the Multilinear Extension to Study Some Probabilistic Power Indices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 437-452, May.
    12. Taylan Mavruk & Conny Overland & Stefan Sjögren, 2020. "Keeping it real or keeping it simple? Ownership concentration measures compared," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 958-1005, September.
    13. Leech, D., 2000. "Members' Voting Power in the Governance of the International Monetary Fund," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 583, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    14. Dennis Leech & Robert Leech, 2006. "Voting power and voting blocs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 285-303, June.
    15. Kurz, Sascha & Mayer, Alexander & Napel, Stefan, 2021. "Influence in weighted committees," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    16. Kong, Qianqian & Peters, Hans, 2023. "Power indices for networks, with applications to matching markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 448-456.
    17. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Bermig, Andreas & Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Corporate governance and employee power in the boardroom: An applied game theoretic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 51-74.
    18. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2010. "Applying relation algebra and RelView to measures in a social network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 182-195, April.
    19. Zineb Abidi & Matthieu Leprince & Vincent Merlin, 2020. "Power Inequality in Inter-communal Structures: The Simulated Impact of a Reform in the Case of the Municipalities in Western France," Post-Print halshs-02996998, HAL.
    20. Calvo, Emilio & Lasaga, Javier & van den Nouweland, Anne, 1999. "Values of games with probabilistic graphs," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-95, January.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00010171. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.