“绿色”管理授权理论

IF 2.2 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Environment and Development Economics Pub Date : 2021-08-03 DOI:10.1017/S1355770X21000206
D. Buccella, L. Fanti, L. Gori
{"title":"“绿色”管理授权理论","authors":"D. Buccella, L. Fanti, L. Gori","doi":"10.1017/S1355770X21000206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article develops a non-cooperative game with managerial quantity-setting firms in which owners choose whether to delegate output and abatement decisions to managers through a contract based on emissions (conventionally denoted as ‘green’ delegation, GD) instead of sales (sales delegation, SD), and the government levies an emissions tax to incentivise firms’ emissions-reduction actions. First, it compares the Nash equilibrium outcomes between GD and SD and then contrasts them also with profit maximisation (PM). A plethora of Nash equilibria emerges, especially in the case GD versus PM (the ‘green delegation game’), depending on the public awareness toward environmental quality, ranging from the coordination game to the ‘green’ prisoner's dilemma. Second, though the contract under GD incentivises managers for emissions, the environmental damage is lower than under SD. This is because the optimal tax more than compensates the incentive for emissions. These findings suggest that designing GD contracts paradoxically favours environmental quality.","PeriodicalId":47751,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Development Economics","volume":"27 1","pages":"223 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1355770X21000206","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Green’ managerial delegation theory\",\"authors\":\"D. Buccella, L. Fanti, L. Gori\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1355770X21000206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article develops a non-cooperative game with managerial quantity-setting firms in which owners choose whether to delegate output and abatement decisions to managers through a contract based on emissions (conventionally denoted as ‘green’ delegation, GD) instead of sales (sales delegation, SD), and the government levies an emissions tax to incentivise firms’ emissions-reduction actions. First, it compares the Nash equilibrium outcomes between GD and SD and then contrasts them also with profit maximisation (PM). A plethora of Nash equilibria emerges, especially in the case GD versus PM (the ‘green delegation game’), depending on the public awareness toward environmental quality, ranging from the coordination game to the ‘green’ prisoner's dilemma. Second, though the contract under GD incentivises managers for emissions, the environmental damage is lower than under SD. This is because the optimal tax more than compensates the incentive for emissions. These findings suggest that designing GD contracts paradoxically favours environmental quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Development Economics\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"223 - 249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1355770X21000206\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Development Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X21000206\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Development Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X21000206","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文发展了一个非合作博弈,在博弈中,所有者选择是否通过基于排放(通常称为“绿色”委托,GD)而不是基于销售(销售委托,SD)的合同将产出和减排决策委托给管理者,而政府征收排放税以激励企业的减排行动。首先,它比较了GD和SD之间的纳什均衡结果,然后将它们与利润最大化(PM)进行了对比。根据公众对环境质量的意识,从协调博弈到“绿色”囚徒困境,出现了大量的纳什均衡,特别是在GD vs PM的情况下(“绿色委托博弈”)。其次,尽管GD模式下的合同激励管理者排放,但环境损害低于SD模式。这是因为最优税收不仅补偿了对排放的激励。这些发现表明,设计gdp契约自相矛盾地有利于环境质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
‘Green’ managerial delegation theory
Abstract This article develops a non-cooperative game with managerial quantity-setting firms in which owners choose whether to delegate output and abatement decisions to managers through a contract based on emissions (conventionally denoted as ‘green’ delegation, GD) instead of sales (sales delegation, SD), and the government levies an emissions tax to incentivise firms’ emissions-reduction actions. First, it compares the Nash equilibrium outcomes between GD and SD and then contrasts them also with profit maximisation (PM). A plethora of Nash equilibria emerges, especially in the case GD versus PM (the ‘green delegation game’), depending on the public awareness toward environmental quality, ranging from the coordination game to the ‘green’ prisoner's dilemma. Second, though the contract under GD incentivises managers for emissions, the environmental damage is lower than under SD. This is because the optimal tax more than compensates the incentive for emissions. These findings suggest that designing GD contracts paradoxically favours environmental quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Environment and Development Economics is positioned at the intersection of environmental, resource and development economics. The Editor and Associate Editors, supported by a distinguished panel of advisors from around the world, aim to encourage submissions from researchers in the field in both developed and developing countries. The Journal is divided into two main sections, Theory and Applications, which includes regular academic papers and Policy Options, which includes papers that may be of interest to the wider policy community. Environment and Development Economics also publishes occasional Policy Fora (discussions based on a focal paper). From time to time the journal publishes special issues based on a particular theme.
期刊最新文献
Natural resource extraction and ethnic inequality in Dak Lak, Vietnam Does idiosyncratic risk matter for climate policy? Unravelling the pastoralist paradox – preferences for land tenure security and flexibility in Kenya COVID-19, climate shocks, and food security linkages: evidence and perceptions from smallholder farming communities in Tanzania EDE volume 27 issue 5 Cover and Back matter
×
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