Social equity in international environmental agreements

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-04-29 DOI:10.1007/s10898-024-01368-2
Chiara Donnini, Armando Sacco
{"title":"Social equity in international environmental agreements","authors":"Chiara Donnini, Armando Sacco","doi":"10.1007/s10898-024-01368-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of this paper is to investigate the problem of designing and building International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) taking into account some normative properties. We consider <i>n</i> asymmetric countries of the world, each one generating a quantity of pollutant emissions from the production of goods and services. We assume that individual emissions yield private benefits and negative externalities affecting all countries. To determine its own level of pollution, each state conducts a cost-benefit analysis. The absence of a supranational entity imposing emissions reduction makes IEAs based on voluntary participation. Examining the standard static non-cooperative game-theoretical model of coalition formation, we discover that the resulting emissions allocations might not be equitable à la Foley. It means that there might exist at least one player preferring to implement some other agent’s strategic plan instead of to play her own strategy. With the goal of studying whether equity, at least among coalesced countries, may be a criterion leading to social improvement, we introduce a new optimization rule. We require that members of an environmental coalition have to solve the maximization problem subject to the constraint imposing that they do not envy each other. Analyzing the particular case of two-player games, we get that, when countries are, in a sense, not too different from each other, our new mechanism endogenously induces social equity. By imposing a suitable total emission cap, the same results extend to all those games where our and standard solutions coexist and are different.\n</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-024-01368-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate the problem of designing and building International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) taking into account some normative properties. We consider n asymmetric countries of the world, each one generating a quantity of pollutant emissions from the production of goods and services. We assume that individual emissions yield private benefits and negative externalities affecting all countries. To determine its own level of pollution, each state conducts a cost-benefit analysis. The absence of a supranational entity imposing emissions reduction makes IEAs based on voluntary participation. Examining the standard static non-cooperative game-theoretical model of coalition formation, we discover that the resulting emissions allocations might not be equitable à la Foley. It means that there might exist at least one player preferring to implement some other agent’s strategic plan instead of to play her own strategy. With the goal of studying whether equity, at least among coalesced countries, may be a criterion leading to social improvement, we introduce a new optimization rule. We require that members of an environmental coalition have to solve the maximization problem subject to the constraint imposing that they do not envy each other. Analyzing the particular case of two-player games, we get that, when countries are, in a sense, not too different from each other, our new mechanism endogenously induces social equity. By imposing a suitable total emission cap, the same results extend to all those games where our and standard solutions coexist and are different.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际环境协定中的社会公平
本文旨在研究在考虑某些规范属性的情况下设计和制定国际环境协议(IEAs)的问题。我们考虑了世界上 n 个不对称国家,每个国家在生产产品和提供服务时都会产生一定数量的污染物排放。我们假设单个国家的排放会产生影响所有国家的私人利益和负外部性。为了确定本国的污染水平,每个国家都要进行成本效益分析。由于没有强制减排的超国家实体,因此国际环境协定以自愿参与为基础。通过研究联盟形成的标准静态非合作博弈理论模型,我们发现由此产生的排放分配可能并不公平。这意味着可能至少有一个参与者宁愿执行其他参与者的战略计划,而不是采取自己的战略。为了研究公平(至少在联合起来的国家之间)是否是导致社会进步的标准,我们引入了一个新的优化规则。我们要求环境联盟的成员在解决最大化问题时必须遵守相互不嫉妒的约束条件。通过分析双人博弈的特殊情况,我们发现,当国家之间在某种意义上没有太大差异时,我们的新机制会内生地诱导社会公平。通过施加一个合适的排放总量上限,同样的结果可以扩展到我们的解决方案和标准解决方案共存且不同的所有博弈中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1