Treaties seeking to supply transnational public goods are usually modeled as a game in which cooperation is incomplete, with some countries participating and some not. This paper shows that, if the usual rationality concept is weakened somewhat, countries will often do better by negotiating a consensus treaty in which provision of the public good is chosen to maximize the collective payoff of all countries subject to participation in the treaty being full. The theory developed here thus explains when, and why, it may be better to negotiate a treaty that is "broad but shallow" rather than "narrow but deep."
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Thomas Wolpert).
Related research
Keywords:
Find related papers by JEL classification: C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation