IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v13y2013i3p343-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of international environmental agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Jürg Vollenweider

Abstract

Many argue that international environmental agreements (IEAs) can alter states’ cost-benefit analyses by providing crucial information about the costs of environmental degradation. Thereby, IEAs may help to effectively curb environmental pollution. However, previous attempts to empirically measure institutional effectiveness found it difficult to provide credible estimates because they have missed to produce convincing counterfactuals. This study empirically estimates the effectiveness of one prominent example of an international environmental institution, the Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution agreement (LRTAP). It sets forth a transparent identification strategy in light of latest advancements in the causal inference literature and presents evidence for the non-effectiveness of the LRTAP in changing member states’ behavior in terms of anthropogenic emissions of two substances (NO x and SO 2 ). By deriving and illustrating the use of difference-in- differences (DID) design in the context of IEAs, this study provides a general methodological tool kit to drawing causal inferences about the effectiveness of international environmental institutions. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Jürg Vollenweider, 2013. "The effectiveness of international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 343-367, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:13:y:2013:i:3:p:343-367
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-012-9193-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10784-012-9193-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-012-9193-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karl-Göran Mäler & Aart De Zeeuw, 1998. "The Acid Rain Differential Game," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(2), pages 167-184, September.
    2. Murdoch, James C. & Sandler, Todd, 1997. "The voluntary provision of a pure public good: The case of reduced CFC emissions and the Montreal Protocol," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 331-349, February.
    3. de Zeeuw, A.J., 1998. "The acid rain differential game," Other publications TiSEM f6c561bf-c603-4de7-994c-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. James C. Murdoch & Tod Sandler & Keith Sargent, 1997. "A Tale of Two Collectives: Sulphur versus Nitrogen Oxides Emission Reduction in Europe," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(254), pages 281-301, May.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    6. Alberto Abadie & Javier Gardeazabal, 2003. "The Economic Costs of Conflict: A Case Study of the Basque Country," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 113-132, March.
    7. Aakvik, Arild & Tjøtta, Sigve, 2011. "Do collective actions clear common air? The effect of international environmental protocols on sulphur emissions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 343-351, June.
    8. Alberto Abadie & Alexis Diamond & Jens Hainmueller, 2007. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program," NBER Technical Working Papers 0335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Oran R. Young, 2003. "Determining Regime Effectiveness: A Commentary on the Oslo-Potsdam Solution," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(3), pages 97-104, August.
    10. Fearon, James D., 1998. "Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 269-305, April.
    11. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Fixed-Effects and Related Estimators for Correlated Random-Coefficient and Treatment-Effect Panel Data Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 385-390, May.
    12. Ronald B. Mitchell, 2006. "Problem Structure, Institutional Design, and the Relative Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(3), pages 72-89, August.
    13. Carsten Helm & Detlef Sprinz, 2000. "Measuring the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 630-652, October.
    14. Oran R. Young, 2001. "Inferences and Indices: Evaluating the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 99-121, February.
    15. Downs, George W & Jones, Michael A, 2002. "Reputation, Compliance, and International Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 95-114, January.
    16. Heckman, J.J. & Hotz, V.J., 1988. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods For Estimating The Impact Of Social Programs: The Case Of Manpower Training," University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-12, Chicago - Economics Research Center.
    17. Von Stein, Jana, 2005. "Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 611-622, November.
    18. Jon Hovi & Detlef F. Sprinz & Arild Underdal, 2003. "The Oslo-Potsdam Solution to Measuring Regime Effectiveness: Critique, Response, and the Road Ahead," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(3), pages 74-96, August.
    19. Ronald B. Mitchell, 2002. "A Quantitative Approach to Evaluating International Environmental Regimes," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 2(4), pages 58-83, November.
    20. Finus, Michael & Tjotta, Sigve, 2003. "The Oslo Protocol on sulfur reduction: the great leap forward?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 2031-2048, September.
    21. Simmons, Beth A. & Hopkins, Daniel J., 2005. "The Constraining Power of International Treaties: Theory and Methods," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 623-631, November.
    22. Bratberg, Espen & Tjotta, Sigve & Oines, Torgeir, 2005. "Do voluntary international environmental agreements work?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 583-597, November.
    23. Koremenos, Barbara & Lipson, Charles & Snidal, Duncan, 2001. "The Rational Design of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 761-799, October.
    24. Evan J. Ringquist & Tatiana Kostadinova, 2005. "Assessing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements: The Case of the 1985 Helsinki Protocol," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 86-102, January.
    25. Bernauer, Thomas, 1995. "The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn more," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 351-377, April.
    26. World Bank, 2010. "World Development Indicators 2010," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 4373, December.
    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. Carl Gaigné & Lota-D Tamini, 2018. "Environmental regulation and eco-industry trade: Theory and evidence from the European Union," Working Papers hal-01941269, HAL.
    2. Yoomi Kim & Katsuya Tanaka & Shunji Matsuoka, 2020. "Environmental and economic effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Isaksen, Elisabeth Thuestad, 2020. "Have international pollution protocols made a difference?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Peter H. Sand & Jeffrey McGee, 2022. "Lessons learnt from two decades of international environmental agreements: law," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 263-278, June.
    5. Carl Gaigné & Lota D. Tamini, 2021. "Environmental Taxation and Import Demand for Environmental Goods: Theory and Evidence from the European Union," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(2), pages 307-352, February.
    6. Chaewoon Oh, 2022. "Evaluation of the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism’s contribution to an international climate policy framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 527-542, September.
    7. Yoomi Kim & Katsuya Tanaka & Shunji Matsuoka, 2017. "Institutional Mechanisms and the Consequences of International Environmental Agreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 77-98, February.
    8. Maamoun, Nada, 2019. "The Kyoto protocol: Empirical evidence of a hidden success," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 227-256.
    9. Andreas Kokkvoll Tveit, 2021. "Does capacity increase compliance? Examining evidence from European cooperation against air pollution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 323-345, June.
    10. Maamoun, Nada, 2021. "IEAs and compliance: Do treaty linkages play a role?," ILE Working Paper Series 43, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.

    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. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    2. Isaksen, Elisabeth Thuestad, 2020. "Have international pollution protocols made a difference?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Aakvik, Arild & Tjøtta, Sigve, 2011. "Do collective actions clear common air? The effect of international environmental protocols on sulphur emissions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 343-351, June.
    4. Andreas Kokkvoll Tveit, 2018. "Can the management school explain noncompliance with international environmental agreements?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 491-512, August.
    5. RonaldB. Mitchell & LilianaB. Andonova & Mark Axelrod & Jörg Balsiger & Thomas Bernauer & JessicaF. Green & James Hollway & RakhyunE. Kim & Jean-Frédéric Morin, 2020. "What We Know (and Could Know) About International EnvironmentalAgreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 103-121, February.
    6. Carolyn Johns & Adam Thorn & Debora VanNijnatten, 2018. "Environmental regime effectiveness and the North American Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 315-333, June.
    7. Frank Grundig, 2012. "Dealing with the temporal domain of regime effectiveness: A further conceptual development of the Oslo-Potsdam solution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 111-127, May.
    8. Yoomi Kim & Katsuya Tanaka & Shunji Matsuoka, 2017. "Institutional Mechanisms and the Consequences of International Environmental Agreements," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 77-98, February.
    9. Gabriele Spilker & Tobias Böhmelt, 2013. "The impact of preferential trade agreements on governmental repression revisited," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 343-361, September.
    10. Rahel Aichele, 2013. "Trade, Climate Policy and Carbon Leakage - Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 49.
    11. Arild Underdal, 2013. "Meeting common environmental challenges: the co-evolution of policies and practices," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 15-30, March.
    12. Alexandre Sauquet, 2014. "Exploring the nature of inter-country interactions in the process of ratifying international environmental agreements: the case of the Kyoto Protocol," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 141-158, April.
    13. Derek Kellenberg & Arik Levinson, 2014. "Waste of Effort? International Environmental Agreements," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 135-169.
    14. Jon Hovi & Tora Skodvin, 2017. "Why the United States Supports International Enforcement for Some Treaties but not for Others," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 79-92.
    15. Tamar Gutner & Alexander Thompson, 2010. "The politics of IO performance: A framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 227-248, September.
    16. Lindstad, Berit H. & Solberg, Birger, 2010. "Challenges in determining national effects of international policy processes: Forest protection in Norway as a case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 489-496, September.
    17. Rahel Aichele & Gabriel Felbermayr, 2013. "The Effect of the Kyoto Protocol on Carbon Emissions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 731-757, September.
    18. Stefan Borsky & Paul A. Raschky, 2011. "A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Compliance with an International Environmental Agreement on Open Access Resources," Working Papers 2011-10, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Spilker, Gabriele, 2013. "The Impact of Preferencial Trade Agreements on Governmental Repression Revisited," Papers 553, World Trade Institute.
    20. Maamoun, Nada, 2019. "The Kyoto protocol: Empirical evidence of a hidden success," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 227-256.

    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:spr:ieaple:v:13:y:2013:i:3:p:343-367. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.