IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/29320.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining over Environmental Budgets: A Political Economy Model with Application to French Water Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Alban
  • Zaporozhets, Vera

Abstract

In decentralized water management with earmarked budgets financed by user taxes and distributed back in the form of subsidies, net gains are often heterogeneous across user categories. This paper explores the role of negotiation over budget allocation and coalition formation in water boards, to provide an explanation for such user-specific gaps between tax payments and subsidies. We propose a bargaining model to represent the sequential nature of the negotiation process in water districts, in which stakeholder representatives may bargain upon a fraction of the budget only. The structural model of budget shares estimated from the data on French Water Agencies performs well as compared with reduced-form estimation. Empirical results confirm the two-stage bargaining process and provide evidence for systematic net gains from the system for agricultural water users.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Alban & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2015. "Bargaining over Environmental Budgets: A Political Economy Model with Application to French Water Policy," TSE Working Papers 15-579, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
  • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:29320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2015/wp_tse_579.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moro, Daniele & Sckokai, Paolo, 1999. "Modelling the CAP Arable Crop Regime in Italy : Degree of Decoupling and Impact of Agenda 2000," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 53.
    2. Ronaldo Seroa da Motta & Alban Thomas & Lillian Saade Hazin & Jose Gustavo Feres & Céline Nauges & Antonio Saade Hazin, 2004. "Economic Instruments for Water Management," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3548.
    3. Simon, Leo K. & Thoyer, Sophie & Morardet, Sylvie & Goodhue, Rachael E. & Rio, Patrick & Rausser, Gordon C., 2003. "Structure and bargaining power in multilateral negotiations: Application to water management policies in France," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58258, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Baron, David P. & Ferejohn, John A., 1989. "Bargaining in Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1181-1206, December.
    5. Sgobbi, Alessandra & Carraro, Carlo, 2011. "A Stochastic Multiple Players Multi-Issues Bargaining Model for the Piave River Basin," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 119-150, April.
    6. Sophie Thoyer & Sylvie Morardet & Patrick Rio & Leo Simon & Rachael Goodhue & Gordon Rausser, 2001. "A Bargaining Model to Simulate Negotiations Between Water Users," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 4(2), pages 1-6.
    7. Stef PROOST & Vera ZAPOROZHETS, 2010. "The political economy of fixed regional investment shares with an illustration for Belgian Railway investments," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces10.05, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    8. Levitt, Steven D & Poterba, James M, 1999. "Congressional Distributive Politics and State Economic Performance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 99(1-2), pages 185-216, April.
    9. Carlo Carraro & Carmen Marchiori & Alessandra Sgobbi, 2005. "Applications of Negotiation Theory to Water Issues," Working Papers 2005.65, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Keisuke Hattori, 2010. "Strategic Voting for Noncooperative Environmental Policies in Open Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 459-474, August.
    11. Diermeier, Daniel & Merlo, Antonio, 2004. "An empirical investigation of coalitional bargaining procedures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 783-797, March.
    12. Hülya K. K. Eraslan, 2008. "Corporate Bankruptcy Reorganizations: Estimates From A Bargaining Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 659-681, May.
    13. Hua Wang & Nlandu Mamingi & Benoit Laplante & Susmita Dasgupta, 2003. "Incomplete Enforcement of Pollution Regulation: Bargaining Power of Chinese Factories," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 245-262, March.
    14. Hall, Alastair R. & Pelletier, Denis, 2011. "Nonnested Testing In Models Estimated Via Generalized Method Of Moments," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 443-456, April.
    15. Proost, Stef & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2013. "The political economy of fixed regional public expenditure shares with an illustration for Belgian railway investments," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 808-815.
    16. Lessmann, Kai & Kornek, Ulrike & Dellink, Rob & Emmerling, Johannes & Eyckmans, Johan & Nagashima, Miyuki & Weikard, Hans-Peter & Yang, Zili, 2014. "The Stability and Effectiveness of Climate Coalitions: A Comparative Analysis of Multiple Integrated Assessment Models," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 163598, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. repec:oup:ecpoli:v:19:y:2004:i:39:p:221-266 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Smith, Richard J, 1992. "Non-nested.Tests for Competing Models Estimated by Generalized Method of Moments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 973-980, July.
    19. Brian Knight, 2005. "Estimating the Value of Proposal Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1639-1652, December.
    20. Rupert Gatti & Timo Goeschl & Ben Groom & Timothy Swanson, 2011. "The Biodiversity Bargaining Problem," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(4), pages 609-628, April.
    21. Henry Van Egteren & Jianmin Tang, 1997. "Maxium Victim Benefit: A Fair Division Process in Transboundary Pollution Problems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(4), pages 363-386, December.
    22. Carraro, Carlo & Siniscalco, Domenico, 1993. "Strategies for the international protection of the environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 309-328, October.
    23. Knight, Brian, 2004. "Parochial interests and the centralized provision of local public goods: evidence from congressional voting on transportation projects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 845-866, March.
    24. Banks, Jeffrey s. & Duggan, John, 2000. "A Bargaining Model of Collective Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-88, March.
    25. Brian Knight, 2002. "Endogenous Federal Grants and Crowd-out of State Government Spending: Theory and Evidence from the Federal Highway Aid Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 71-92, March.
    26. Eraslan, Hulya, 2002. "Uniqueness of Stationary Equilibrium Payoffs in the Baron-Ferejohn Model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 11-30, March.
    27. Douglas Rivers & Quang Vuong, 2002. "Model selection tests for nonlinear dynamic models," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 5(1), pages 1-39, June.
    28. Hans-Peter Weikard & Rob Dellink & Ekko Ierland, 2010. "Renegotiations in the Greenhouse," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 573-596, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tse:wpaper:29320. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.