IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v14y2009i01p117-137_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical test of new developments in coalition theory for the design of international environmental agreements

Author

Listed:
  • FINUS, MICHAEL
  • SÃ IZ, M. ELENA
  • HENDRIX, ELIGIUS M.T.

Abstract

We consider new developments in coalition theory for the design of international environmental agreements (IEAs). Applying an empirical model on climate change that comprises benefit and cost estimates from abatement for 12 world regions, we analyze how the design of an agreement affects the success of self-enforcing IEAs. We analyze single versus multiple coalitions, open versus exclusive membership with majority and unanimity voting, and no transfers versus transfers with four different transfer schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Finus, Michael & Sã Iz, M. Elena & Hendrix, Eligius M.T., 2009. "An empirical test of new developments in coalition theory for the design of international environmental agreements," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 117-137, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:14:y:2009:i:01:p:117-137_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X08004634/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Sareh Vosooghi & Maria Arvaniti & Frederick Van Der Ploeg, 2022. "Self-enforcing climate coalitions for farsighted countries: integrated analysis of heterogeneous countries," Economics Series Working Papers 971, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Michael Finus & Bianca Rundshagen & Johan Eyckmans, 2014. "Simulating a sequential coalition formation process for the climate change problem: first come, but second served?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 220(1), pages 5-23, September.
    4. Bate, Andrew M. & Jones, Glyn & Kleczkowski, Adam & Touza, Julia, 2021. "Modelling the effectiveness of collaborative schemes for disease and pest outbreak prevention," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 442(C).
    5. Adam Millard-Ball, 2012. "The Tuvalu Syndrome," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 1047-1066, February.
    6. Vale, Petterson Molina, 2016. "The changing climate of climate change economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 12-19.
    7. Tiziano Distefano & Simone D’Alessandro, 2021. "A new two-nested-game approach: linking micro- and macro-scales in international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 493-516, September.
    8. M Sáiz & Eligius Hendrix & Niels Olieman, 2006. "On the Computation of Stability in Multiple Coalition Formation Games," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 251-275, October.
    9. Meißner, Nathalie, 2013. "The incentives of private companies to invest in protected area certificates: How coalitions can improve ecosystem sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 148-158.
    10. S. Yu & E. C. Ierland & H.-P. Weikard & X. Zhu, 2017. "Nash bargaining solutions for international climate agreements under different sets of bargaining weights," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 709-729, October.
    11. Kolstad Charles D, 2010. "Equity, Heterogeneity and International Environmental Agreements," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, 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:cup:endeec:v:14:y:2009:i:01:p:117-137_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    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.