Strategy Proof Uniform Effort Sharing Schemes For Transfrontier Pollution Problems
Uniform effort sharing rules for transfrontier pollution problems, like the popular equal percentage reduction arrangement, do not result in a cost efficient allocation of emission abatement efforts. In addition, they may violate voluntary participation constraints if the uniform effort level is decided upon by means of ordinary majority vote. In contrast to ordinary majority vote, I consider in this paper the so-called conservative mechanism by Moulin (1994) which picks the smallest revealed effort level in stead of the median. The conservative mechanism always respects a weak participation constraint. Moreover, it is coalitionally strategy proof meaning that no individual player, or group of players, can achieve a better outcome by misrepresenting its preferences for environmental quality. In order to remedy the cost inefficiency of the equal percentage arrangements, I propose to apply the conservative mechanism to the choice of a uniform emission tax rate. Simulations for the greenhouse effect indicate that the latter mechanism does considerably better than the traditional equal percentage arrangement. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999
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): 14 (1999)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
|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.:
- Hervé Moulin, 1994. "Serial Cost-Sharing of Excludable Public Goods," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 305-325.
- Jean-Marc Burniaux & John P. Martin & Giuseppe Nicoletti & Joaquim Oliveira Martins, 1992. "The Costs of Reducing CO2 Emissions: A Technical Manual," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 115, OECD Publishing.
- Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
- Chander, P. & Tulkens, H., .
"The core of an economy with multilateral environmental externalities,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
1276, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Henry Tulkens & Parkash Chander, 1997. "The Core of an Economy with Multilateral Environmental Externalities," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 379-401.
- Chander, Parkash & Tulkens, Henry, 1994. "The Core of an Economy With Multilateral Environmental Externalities," Working Papers 886, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- CHANDER, Parkash & TULKENS, Henry, 1995. "The Core of an Economy with Multilateral Environmental Externalities," CORE Discussion Papers 1995050, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Nordhaus, William D, 1991. "To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 920-37, July.
- 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.
- H. Moulin, 1980. "On strategy-proofness and single peakedness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 437-455, January.
- Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:14:y:1999:i:2:p:165-189. 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 (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.