Cooperation and reciprocity in carbon sequestration contracts
This paper studies the role of cooperation and reciprocity on the structure of self-enforcing carbon sequestration contracts. The optimal contract is derived as a result of the optimizing actions of purely self-interested agents, and agents that act according to social or egoistic preferences. The analysis finds that buyers'preferences do not affect contract structure unless the buyer is averse to inequality. In contrast, the optimal payment rule is directly related to the seller's preferences as the payment must motivate the seller to comply with forest conservation. It also finds that the presence of altruistic or warm glow preferences increases the likelihood of cooperation in the long-term relationship relative to the case of selfish parties. These results imply that agencies or organizations that are not only concerned about carbon sequestration but also have objectives related to the economic development of small land holders may be more successful in the implementation contracts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
|Date of creation:||01 Jun 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433|
Phone: (202) 477-1234
Web page: http://www.worldbank.org/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Charness, Gary B & Rabin, Matthew, 2001.
"Understanding Social Preferences With Simple Tests,"
University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series
qt0dc3k4m5, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2001. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4qz9k8vg, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3d04q5sm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," General Economics and Teaching 0303002, EconWPA.
- Jonathan Levin, 2000.
"Relational Incentive Contracts,"
01002, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Anderson, Simon P. & Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 1998. "A theoretical analysis of altruism and decision error in public goods games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 297-323, November.
- Videras Julio R & Owen Ann L, 2006. "Public Goods Provision and Well-Being: Empirical Evidence Consistent with the Warm Glow Theory," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-40, April.
- Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-58, December.
- Fehr, Ernst & Klein, Alexander & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2007.
"Fairness and contract design,"
Munich Reprints in Economics
20618, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Fehr, Ernst & Klein, Alexander & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "Fairness and Contract Design," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 67, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
- Roe, Brian E. & Wu, Steven Y., 2009. "Do the Selfish Mimic Cooperators? Experimental Evidence from Finitely-Repeated Labor Markets," IZA Discussion Papers 4084, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Steven Y. Wu & Brian Roe, 2007. "Contract Enforcement, Social Efficiency, and Distribution: Some Experimental Evidence," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 243-258.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:6521. 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: (Roula I. Yazigi)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.