Author
Listed:
- Mobarak Mushfiq, Ahmed
- Lipscomb, Molly
Abstract
Decentralized management of public goods creates the potential for spillovers across jurisdictions. These spillovers may be particularly large in the case of river management where the river has little value to upstream constituents once it has left the jurisdiction. Cross border cooperation in management of public goods can reduce spillovers, but negotiation between jurisdictions can be difficult to achieve. This paper estimates the effectiveness of policy interventions designed to increase the potential for coordination and negotiation between jurisdictions and investigates the mechanisms through which water management committees and other forums designed to enable cooperation between jurisdictions may improve cross border cooperation. We develop a simple theoretical model, based on a two stage bargaining game, in which we analyze negotiation between jurisdictions. We arrive at several key theoretical predictions: 1) Pollution levels between jurisdictions decrease following the institution of water basin committees, 2) These reductions in pollution loads are largest in the downstream areas of the river, and 3) Political affiliation and other factors which reduce transactions costs between counties also lead to larger negotiated pollution reductions by the upstream county. We find that overall; water basin management committees have a mixed impact on water quality. Organic pollution loads appear to decrease with the institution of water basin committees, but the overall health of the river as measured by dissolved oxygen content appears to be relatively unaffected by the institution of water basin committees. Consistent with the model, we find that the impact of water basin committees is largest in the downstream portion of the river where information asymmetries about the origin of the pollution are largest. We also find that increases in political cohesion between the upstream and downstream counties lead to decreases in organic pollution loads between the upstream and downstream counties. These decreases in pollution arising from decreased costs of negotiation between local leaders appear to be largest when combined with dedicated forums for negotiation between the counties.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
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:dbl:dblwop:196. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Pablo Rolando (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cafffve.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.