What is it about?
This paper examines the timing of adopting a policy for tackling an environmental issue such as climate change from a viewpoint of distributional conflicts. A dynamic game of providing public goods (Alesina and Drazen, American Economic Review 81(5), 1170–1118 (1991)) is applied to the argument, modified by including abatement costs as well as the loss in the environment. In this framework, even if the immediate adoption of environmental policy is socially optimal, a disproportionate burden of pollution reduction leads to a delay in policy adoption. This is because the disproportionate burden increases the gain from waiting for eachindividual hoping that the other will agree to bear the heavier burden. The impact of income distribution on the timing is also examined. The level of averting behavior is assumed to depend on the level of income. If the distribution of income is more dispersed, the regional disparities in environmental degradation become larger because the poor tend to avert less and get more loss than the rich due to their tighter budget constraints. Under asymmetric information on damages, as the disparities in income become more dispersed, each individual expects that his/her opponent’s damage becomes severe; then, he/she gives in first. Thus, each individual holds out longer so that the timing of policy implementation is delayed further. Finally, the theoretical result is empirically tested by both probit and discriminant analyses to examine whether income distribution has an impact on the timing of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in practice.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Even if the immediate adoption of environmental policy is socially optimal, a disproportionate burden of pollution reduction leads to a delay in policy adoption. This is because the disproportionate burden increases the gain from waiting for each individual hoping that the other will agree to bear the heavier burden. The impact of income distribution on the timing is also examined.
Perspectives
With regard to the empirical analysis, only preliminary results have been shown. The income distribution between developed and developing countries have not been examined. For the probit analysis, the number of observations is not sufficient. Other political, economic and ecological factors should also be examined. Possibly, the degree of damage relies not only on income but also on some ecological factors, for instance, how vulnerable the place is to sea level rise. These points should be further investigated.
Prof. (Associate) Minoru Nakada
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Distributional Conflicts and the Timing of Environmental Policy, International Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics, March 2006, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1007/s10784-004-7861-2.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
