What is Driving the EU Burden-Sharing Agreement: Efficiency or Equity?
AbstractUnder the Kyoto Protocol the European Union (EU) agreed to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases by 8 percent in comparison with the level in 1990. The Burden-Sharing Agreement (BSA) further redistributes the overall 8 percent reduction target among the EU Member States. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the BSA from both an economical and a political perspective, which means performing hypothesis tests of whether cost-efficiency and equity respectively, were considered in the BSA settlement. Variables used to perform the equity tests are chosen on the basis of the Triptych study. However, the cost-efficiency test is made possible by first calculating marginal abatement costs from the directional output distance function, which is estimated on country production data for 1990-2000. The function is estimated using both corrected ordinary least squares and linear programming techniques. The main conclusion drawn from this study is that both efficiency and equity were considered important to the BSA.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Umeå University, Department of Economics in its series Umeå Economic Studies with number 620.
Length: 34 pages
Date of creation: 16 Dec 2003
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Journal of Environmental Management, 2007, pages 317-329.
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, Umeå University, S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden
Phone: 090 - 786 61 42
Fax: 090 - 77 23 02
Web page: http://www.econ.umu.se/
More information through EDIRC
burden-sharing; cost-efficiency; parametric directional output distance function; equity; greenhouse gas emission control;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
- L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
- Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Ankarhem, Mattias, 2005. "Bioenergy, Pollution, and Economic Growth," UmeÃ¥ Economic Studies, UmeÃ¥ University, Department of Economics 661, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
- Thomas Aronsson Aronsson & Thomas Jonsson & Tomas Sjögren, 2006.
"Environmental Policy and Optimal Taxation in a Decentralized Economic Federation,"
FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 62(3), pages 437-454, September.
- Aronsson, Thomas & Jonsson, Thomas & Sjögren, Tomas, 2006. "Environmental Policy and Optimal Taxation in a Decentralized Economic Federation," UmeÃ¥ Economic Studies, UmeÃ¥ University, Department of Economics 669, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Kjell-Göran Holmberg).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.