IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cauewp/201805.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Challenging conventional wisdom: Experimental evidence on heterogeneity and coordination in avoiding a collective catastrophic event

Author

Listed:
  • Waichman, Israel
  • Requate, Till
  • Karde, Markus
  • Milinski, Manfred

Abstract

Avoiding a catastrophic climate change event is a global public good characterized by several dimensions, notably heterogeneity between the parties involved. It is often argued that such heterogeneity between countries is a major obstacle to cooperative climate policy. We challenge this belief by experimentally simulating two important heterogeneities, in wealth and loss, when dangerous climate change occurs. We find that under loss heterogeneity the success rate in achieving sufficient mitigation to prevent catastrophic climate change is higher than with homogeneous parties. We also observe that neither endowment heterogeneity nor the combination of endowment and loss heterogeneities lead to significantly different success rates than with homogeneous parties. Our findings suggest that heterogeneities may facilitate rather than hinder successful international climate policy negotiations.

Suggested Citation

  • Waichman, Israel & Requate, Till & Karde, Markus & Milinski, Manfred, 2018. "Challenging conventional wisdom: Experimental evidence on heterogeneity and coordination in avoiding a collective catastrophic event," Economics Working Papers 2018-05, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cauewp:201805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/177618/1/1018379177.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Lange, Andreas & Löschel, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten & Ziegler, Andreas, 2010. "On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 359-375, April.
    3. Carlo Gallier & Martin Kesternich & Bodo Sturm, 2017. "Voting for Burden Sharing Rules in Public Goods Games," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 535-557, July.
    4. Rachel Croson & Melanie Marks, 2000. "Step Returns in Threshold Public Goods: A Meta- and Experimental Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 239-259, March.
    5. Thomas C. Brown & Stephan Kroll, 2017. "Avoiding an uncertain catastrophe: climate change mitigation under risk and wealth heterogeneity," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 155-166, March.
    6. Kesternich, Martin & Lange, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo, 2014. "The impact of burden sharing rules on the voluntary provision of public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 107-123.
    7. Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 122-137.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    10. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    11. Maxwell Burton-Chellew & Robert May & Stuart West, 2013. "Combined inequality in wealth and risk leads to disaster in the climate change game," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 815-830, October.
    12. Nichola Raihani & David Aitken, 2011. "Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 47-55, September.
    13. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    14. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "What is fair? An experimental guide to climate negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 79-95.
    15. Martin Kesternich & Andreas Lange & Bodo Sturm, 2018. "On the performance of rule-based contribution schemes under endowment heterogeneity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 180-204, March.
    16. Manfred Milinski & Torsten Röhl & Jochem Marotzke, 2011. "Cooperative interaction of rich and poor can be catalyzed by intermediate climate targets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 807-814, December.
    17. Mendelsohn, Robert & Dinar, Ariel & Williams, Larry, 2006. "The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 159-178, April.
    18. Croson, Rachel & Marks, Melanie, 2001. "The Effect of Recommended Contributions in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 238-249, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    global public good; climate change negotiation; collective-risk social dilemma; endowment heterogeneity; loss heterogeneity; focal point;

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:zbw:cauewp:201805. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vakiede.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.