Renegotiation–Proof Equilibria in a Global Emission Game When Players Are Impatient
In a two-country model, in which countries differ with respect to the perception of environmental damages and abatement costs, the stability of international environmental agreements is analyzed in a dynamic framework. Three types of agreements are considered: A socially optimal solution, a uniform emission tax (a tax equally applied in both countries) and a uniform emission reduction quota (an equal percentage emission reduction from a base year). Stability is checked for these agreements according to the concept of renegotiation-proofness. It is shown that the stability requirements depend crucially on the parameters defining the interests of the two countries and the type of agreement. Moreover, it is demonstrated that if punishment options are restricted for some reason the stability of an agreement may suffer. One important result of the paper is that if countries exhibit asymmetric interests, stability in the quota regime is higher than in the tax regime and in the social optimum. This might explain why emission reduction quotas have been so popular in international politics despite recommendations of economists to use market-based instruments. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 12 (1998)
Issue (Month): 3 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Alfred Endres & Michael Finus, 1999. "International Environmental Agreements: How the Policy Instrument Affects Equilibrium Emissions and Welfare," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 155(3), pages 527-, September.
- Barrett, Scott, 1994. "Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 878-94, Supplemen.
- Welsch, Heinz, 1995. "Incentives for forty-five countries to join various forms of carbon reduction agreements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 213-237, November.
- Farrell, Joseph & Maskin, Eric, 1987.
"Renegotiation in Repeated Games,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt9wv3h5jb, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Henk Folmer & Pierre Mouche & Shannon Ragland, 1993. "Interconnected games and international environmental problems," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 313-335, August.
- Moreno, Diego & Wooders, John, 1996.
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 80-112, November.
- Veijo Kaitala & Matti Pohjola & Olli Tahvonen, 1992.
"Transboundary air pollution and soil acidification: A dynamic analysis of an acid rain game between Finland and the USSR,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 161-181, March.
- Kaitala, Veijo & Pohjola, Matti & Tahvonen, Olli, 1990. "Transboundary Air Pollution and Soil Acidification: A Dynamic Analysis of an Acid Rain Game between Finland and the USSR," Discussion Papers 344, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
- Fudenberg, Drew & Maskin, Eric, 1986. "The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 533-54, May.
- Kverndokk, S., 1992. "Global co2 Agreements: A Cost Efficient Approach," Memorandum 04/1992, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
- Fankhauser, Samuel & Kverndokk, Snorre, 1996.
"The global warming game -- Simulations of a CO2-reduction agreement,"
Resource and Energy Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 83-102, March.
- Fankhauser, S. & Kverndokk, S., 1992. "The Global Warming Game - Simulations of a CO2 Reduction Agreement," Memorandum 13/1992, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Michael Hoel, 1992. "International environment conventions: The case of uniform reductions of emissions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 141-159, March.
- Carraro, Carlo & Siniscalco, Domenico, 1995. "R&D Cooperation and the Stability of International Environmental Agreements," CEPR Discussion Papers 1154, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Scott Barrett, 1994. "The biodiversity supergame," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 111-122, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:12:y:1998:i:3:p:275-306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.