Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 156-157
ISSN: 1537-5927
106 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 156-157
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: The Economics and Politics of Climate Change, S. 58-80
In: Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Vol. 3, 2009-5
SSRN
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 157
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 156
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: Economics Discussion Paper No. 2008-31
SSRN
Working paper
In: Oxford review of economic policy, Band 24, Heft 2, S. 239-258
ISSN: 1460-2121
Abstract
The emission limits in the Kyoto Protocol are too generous. Simply tightening these limits, however, will not make a new climate treaty any more effective at addressing climate change unless the other problems with Kyoto are also addressed. A new climate treaty arrangement must enforce both participation and compliance. This might be done by applying an enforcement mechanism, such as a trade restriction, to a new treaty styled after Kyoto. Potent trade restrictions, however, may lack credibility and legitimacy. An alternative approach recommended here is to break the problem up, with separate (but linked) agreements addressing individual gases and sectors, using the most appropriate means to enforce each component of the system. In bundling together all sectors and greenhouse gases in a single agreement, Kyoto has aimed to achieve cost-effectiveness at the expense of enforcement, which depends on the treaty's weakest enforcement link. The imperative must be to ensure that any future treaty arrangement can be enforced.
In: Environmental and resource economics, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 45-54
ISSN: 1573-1502
In: Public choice, Band 130, Heft 1, S. 179-208
ISSN: 0048-5829
In: Public choice, Band 130, Heft 1-2, S. 179-207
ISSN: 1573-7101
Why did the world succeed in eradicating smallpox? Though eradication is a global public good, theory suggests that it should not have been vulnerable to free riding. Some countries, however, lacked the capacity to eliminate smallpox. Success thus depended on the other countries providing assistance. Theory suggests that this public good also should not have been vulnerable to free riding. However, financing proved challenging, even though the global benefit-cost ratio for eradication exceeded 400:1. Contrary to what theory suggests, what may have been the greatest achievement of international cooperation ever was not inevitable. Indeed, it very nearly failed. Adapted from the source document.
In: Why Cooperate?, S. 149-165
In: Why Cooperate?, S. 103-132
In: Why Cooperate?, S. 74-102
In: Why Cooperate?, S. 166-189
In: Why Cooperate?, S. 47-73