Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvco/1997052.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cooperation vs. free riding in international environmental affairs: two approaches

Author

Listed:
  • TULKENS, Henry

    (Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain la Neuve, Belgium)

Abstract
Two theses on the likelihood of international cooperation for achieving international optimality in transboundary pollution problems are being confronted: a pessimistic one and an optimistic one. On the one hand a “Small Stable Coalitions” (SSC) thesis — based on the stability of coali- tions literature and put forward in several papers by Barrett, Carraro and Siniscalco — holds the view that only small subsets of the countries involved in a transfrontier pollution problem can ever emerge as a group and sign a treaty among themselves; on the other hand a “Grand Stable Coalition” (GSC) thesis — inspired by classical cooperative game theory and proposed by Chander and Tulkens — presents the contents of a feasi- ble treaty which the authors show to enjoy some “core property”, that is, to be more beneficial not only for all countries taken individually, as com- pared to a no treaty situation, but also more beneficial for all subgroups of them, for any partial treaty they might sign among themselves. The two views are formally developed in Section III, after that a presen- tation is given in Section II of the common underlying economic model of international environmental externalities. Section IV then identifies and discusses several game theoretic differences and similarities between the two approaches, namely those bearing on the notion of “coalition”, on the phenomenon of “free riding” in its relation with “threats” in games with externalities, on the uses of the concept of “characteristic function” in co- operative games (with a suggested extension, designed towards reconciling the two approaches), and finally on the roˆle of transfers and “side pay- ments” in the international polution problem under consideration. The concluding section stresses the fact that essentially two different notions of group stability lie at the root of these diverging views.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvco:1997052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sites.uclouvain.be/core/publications/coredp/coredp1997.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Carlo Carraro & Carmen Marchiori, 2003. "Stable coalitions," Chapters, in: Carlo Carraro (ed.), The Endogenous Formation of Economic Coalitions, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Thierry, BRECHET & François, GERARD & Henry, TULKENS, 2007. "Climate coalitions : a theoretical and computational appraisal," Discussion Papers (ECON - Département des Sciences Economiques) 2007006, Université catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences Economiques.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Johan Eyckmans & Henry Tulkens, 1999. "Simulating with RICE Coalitionally Stable Burden Sharing Agreements for the Climate Change Problem," CESifo Working Paper Series 228, CESifo.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    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:cor:louvco:1997052. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Alain GILLIS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.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.