Do voluntary international environmental agreements work?

Bratberg, Espen; Tjøtta, Sigve; Øines, Torgeir

doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2005.03.002

Cited by 35 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with other empirical analysis(e.g. Bratberg et al [4] hundreds of kilometers before deposition. This initial Convention was a declaration of good will and served as a basis for the 7 follow-up protocols.…”

Section: Data and Stylized Facts 21 Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO₂emissions

Slechten

2015

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the effect of international air-pollution agreements ratified since 1970 on carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 ), the main cause of anthropogenic climate change. The analysis is based on a panel dataset of 150 countries over the period . While the literature generally focuses on one particular agreement, we analyze the effect of the accumulation of agreements using a two-way (country, year) fixed effects regression model. We find that the relationship between the number of ratifications and CO 2 emissions is statistically significant and linearly decreasing.

show abstract

Section: Data and Stylized Facts 21 Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, almost all papers tend to concentrate exclusively on one particular pollutant agreement in a short time span (Bratbeg et al [4]; Finus and Tjøtta [5]; Aakvik and Tjøtta [1]) while we consider all international air-pollution treaties on a long time period. The structure of the paper is the following.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO₂emissions

Slechten

2015

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finus and Tjotta (2003) and Murdoch and Sandler (1997) find that abatement targets for the Oslo and Montreal Protocols, respectively, were more in line with Nash equilibrium than with socially optimal targets. Bratberg et al (2005) and Swanson and Mason (2003) show that emissions from countries that signed the Sofia and Montreal Protocols, respectively, would have been larger in the absence of the protocols.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The traditional economic evaluation method for voluntary programs or agreements, as described in Khanna and Damon (1999) and Bratberg et al (2005), has labeled a program successful if those who are partners have statistically better environmental outcomes than those who are not. Lyon and Maxwell (2007) lay out a theory arguing that a different way to evaluate voluntary programs may be necessary for measures whose purpose is likely to cause information transfers (treatment spillovers).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Voluntary Measures with Treatment Spillovers: The Case of Coal Combustion Products Partnership

Lange¹

2009

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voluntary measures are an increasing part of the environmental policy portfolio in most of the world. The economics literature on voluntary measures has found mixed evidence of their effect on environmental outcomes, controlling for the behavior of those who are not affiliated with the measure (non-partners) and trends leading up to the policy initiation. Traditionally, a voluntary measure would be labeled a success if the measure's partners statistically improved their environmental outcome compared to non-partners, once the measure was initiated. However, that type of evaluation assumes that voluntary measures provide the treatment exclusively to partners. In practice, for many reasons, the treatment provided to partners may also spillover to affect the behavior of non-partners. In voluntary programs, information on the reuse of an input can spread from partner firms to non-partner firms. If the researcher does not account for these treatment spillovers in the evaluation, it is possible for successful measures to be found unsuccessful.It is argued below that an alternative interpretation of a successful voluntary measure is needed, especially for those that involve treatment spillovers. Conditions under which a voluntary measure with treatment spillovers would be considered successful are discussed and then tested using the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2). The purpose of this voluntary program in the U.S. is to increase the reuse, as opposed to disposal, of coal combustion products (CCP). A difference-in-difference estimator finds that C2P2 partners are not statistically different from non-partners in their reuse rates, though the total reuse of coal combustion products has statistically increased over time. Further, non-partners located in states with more C2P2 partners statistically increase their reuse rate more than those in states with few C2P2 partners. The evidence is consistent with conditions needed for a program to be successful in reducing overall the disposal of CCP by partners and non-partners.

show abstract

“…Recently there has been renewed debate about the efficacy of international environmental agreements (IEA). Bratberg, Tjøtta, and Øines (2005) found some empirical evidence from an examination of Europe's attempts to reduce NO X emissions in the 1988 Sofia Protocol that IEAs can lead to cooperative reductions in transboundary pollution emissions. Their results are consistent with the earlier findings of Lange and Vogt (2003) but contradict many other early studies that focus on the gamesmanship inherent in IEAs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits of the Kyoto Protocol to developing countries

Swinton

Sarkar

2007

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Kyoto Protocol relies on incentive-based regulations layered underneath a global cap on net emissions of greenhouse gases. Within the Kyoto Protocol are opportunities and constraints for signatory nations. Of concern to developing nations are the constraints the Kyoto Protocol could place on future growth. We examine the constraints and the opportunities offered to developing countries within the Kyoto Protocol. By identifying the potential costs and benefits the Kyoto Protocol has to offer to developing countries and by examining the incentives each create, we hope to spark serious investigations into ways to minimize the potential costs of entering the Kyoto Protocol and take full advantage of the potential benefits.

show abstract

Do voluntary international environmental agreements work?

Cited by 35 publications

References 16 publications

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO₂emissions

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO₂emissions

Evaluating Voluntary Measures with Treatment Spillovers: The Case of Coal Combustion Products Partnership

The benefits of the Kyoto Protocol to developing countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Do voluntary international environmental agreements work?

Cited by 35 publications

References 16 publications

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO2emissions

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO2emissions

Evaluating Voluntary Measures with Treatment Spillovers: The Case of Coal Combustion Products Partnership

The benefits of the Kyoto Protocol to developing countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO₂emissions

Assessing the effectiveness of global air-pollution treaties on CO₂emissions