IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-23-00151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Take one or more at a time? Issue linkage versus ringfencing with common shocks

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Stähler

    (University of Tübingen, CESifo and NoCeT)

  • Sophia Vaaßen

    (University of Tübingen)

Abstract

Countries cooperate on certain issues like trade and environmental policies through international agreements. These agreements can be comprehensive and cover several issues (issue linkage) or deal with issues separately (ringfencing). A sovereign country experiencing a negative shock may want to withdraw from an agreement even if its exit harms other countries. Under ringfencing, each issue is subject to a separate agreement, and this agreement is terminated if one country has a bad outcome. Under issue linkage, the agreement is only terminated if one country has a bad realization for both issues. Common shocks make ringfencing relatively more attractive since they increase (decrease) the probabilities for all cases in which ringfencing (issue linkage) is the preferred mode of cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Stähler & Sophia Vaaßen, 2025. "Take one or more at a time? Issue linkage versus ringfencing with common shocks," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 45(1), pages 288-299.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-23-00151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2025/Volume45/EB-25-V45-I1-P27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tollison, Robert D. & Willett, Thomas D., 1979. "An economic theory of mutually advantageous issue linkages in international negotiations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 425-449, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    2. Itay Fischhendler & Eran Feitelson & David Eaton, 2004. "The Short-Term and Long-Term Ramifications of Linkages Involving Natural Resources: The US – Mexico Transboundary Water Case," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 22(5), pages 633-650, October.
    3. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro & Igor Cersosimo & Carmen Marchiori, 2002. "Back to Kyoto? US Participation and the Linkage between R&D and Climate Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 688, CESifo.
    4. Magnus Lundgren & Stefanie Bailer & Lisa M Dellmuth & Jonas Tallberg & Silvana Târlea, 2019. "Bargaining success in the reform of the Eurozone," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 65-88, March.
    5. Timo Goeschl, 2005. "Non-binding linked-issues referenda: Analysis and an application," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 249-266, September.
    6. Jurje, Flavia & Lavenex, Sandra, 2013. "Issue-Linkage in International Migration Governance: Trade Agreements as Venues for “Market Power Europe”?," Papers 492, World Trade Institute.
    7. Daniel Finke & Stefanie Bailer, 2019. "Crisis bargaining in the European Union: Formal rules or market pressure?," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 109-133, March.
    8. Steve Chan, 1993. "Relative Bargaining Power in International Debt Negotiation: Collective Action, Sovereignty En Garde, or Mutual Partisan Adjustment?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 13(1), pages 29-60, September.
    9. Muhammad Kabir, 2019. "The Role of Side Payments in the Formation of Asymmetric Alliances: Forging the US–Pakistan Alliance," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(2), pages 162-188, August.
    10. Thomas Kuhn & Radomir Pestow & Anja Zenker, 2018. "Endogenous Climate Coalitions and Free Trade - Building the Missing Link," Chemnitz Economic Papers 018, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology.
    11. Bruno S Frey & Margit Osterloh, 2018. "Strategies to Deal with Terrorism," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 64(4), pages 698-711.
    12. Benz, Arthur, 1991. "Mehr-Ebenen-Verflechtung: Politische Prozesse in verbundenen Entscheidungsarenen," MPIfG Discussion Paper 91/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    13. Ngo Van Long & Martin Richardson & Frank Stähler, 2023. "Issue linkage versus ringfencing in international agreements," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 125(2), pages 489-516, April.
    14. Keisuke Iida, 1993. "When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 403-426, September.
    15. Benz, Arthur & Scharpf, Fritz W. & Zintl, Reinhard, 1992. "Horizontale Politikverflechtung: Zur Theorie von Verhandlungssystemen," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 10, number 10.
    16. Zürn, Michael, 1987. "Gerechte internationale Regime: Bedingungen und Restriktionen der Entstehung nicht-hegemonialer internationaler Regime untersucht am Beispiel der Weltkommunikationsordnung," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, volume 5, number 112658.
    17. Zintl, Reinhard, 1991. "Kooperation und die Aufteilung des Kooperationsgewinns bei horizontaler Politikverflechtung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 91/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    18. 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.
    19. Gal Hochman, 2008. "Trade negotiations, domestic policies, and the Most Favored Nation clause," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 781-795, August.
    20. Susanne Lohmann, 1997. "Linkage Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 38-67, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    issue linkage; ringfencing; common shocks; international agreements; exit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-23-00151. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.