This paper evaluates with numerical computations the respective merits of two competing notions of coalition stability in the standard global public goods model of climate change. To this effect it uses the CWS integrated assessment model. After a reminder of the two game theoretical stability notions involved—core-stability and internal-external stability—and of the CWS model, the former property is shown to hold for the grand coalition if resource transfers of a specific form between countries are introduced. The latter property appears to hold neither for the grand coalition nor for most large coalitions whereas it is verified for most small coalitions in a weak sense that involves transfers. Finally, coalitions, stable in either sense, that perform best in terms of carbon concentration and global welfare are always heterogeneous ones. Therefore, if coalitional stability is taken as an objective, promoting small or homogeneous coalitions is not to be recommended.
AsheimG.FroynC.B.HoviJ.MenzF.C. (2006). “Regional versus Global Cooperation on Climate Control,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management51(1): 93-109.
BarrettS. (2003). Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4.
BernardA.HaurieA.VielleM.ViguierL. (2008). “A two-level dynamic game of carbon emission trading between Russia, China, and Annex B countries,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32(6): 1830-1856.
5.
Brechet, Th., F. Gerard and H. Tulkens (2007). “Climate coalitions: a theoretical and computational appraisal,” CORE discussion paper 2007/3 and FEEM Nota Di Lavoro 21.2007.
6.
BrechetTh.EyckmansJ. (2010). “Coalition Theory and Integrated Assessment Modeling: Lessons for Climate Governance,” in E. Brousseau, P.A. Jouvet and T. Tom Dedeurwareder (eds). Governing Global Environmental Commons: Institutions, Markets, Social Preferences and Political Games, Oxford University Press.
7.
BrechetTh.EyckmansJ.GerardF.MarbaixPh.TulkensH.Van YperseleJ-P. (2010). “The impact of the unilateral EU commitment on the stability of international climate agreements,” Climate Policy, 10: 148-166.
8.
CarraroC.SiniscalcoD. (1993). “Strategies for the international protection of the environment,” Journal of Public Economics, 52(3): 309-328.
9.
CarraroC.EyckmansJ.FinusM. (2006). “Optimal transfers and participation decisions in international environmental agreements,” Re-view of International Organisations, 1(4): 379-396.
10.
ChanderP.TulkensH. (1995). “A core-theoretic solution for the design of cooperative agreements on transfrontier pollution,” International Tax and Public Finance, 2(2), 279-294. Reprinted as chapter 5 (pp. 81-96) in: A. Ulph (ed.), Environmental Policy, International Agreements, and International Trade, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
11.
ChanderP.TulkensH. (1997). “The core of an economy with multilateral environmental externalities,” International Journal of Game Theory, 26(3): 379-401.
12.
ChanderP.TulkensH.Van YperseleJ-P.WillemsS. (2002). “The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic and Game Theoretic Interpretation,” chapter 6 (pp. 98-117) in Kristrom, B., P. Dasgupta and K.-G. Lofgren (eds), Economic Theory for the Environment: Essays in Honor of Karl-Gsran MSler, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
13.
ChanderP.DrezeJ.LovellC.K.MintzJ. (eds) (2006). Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition: essays by Henry Tulkens, Springer, New York.
14.
ChanderP.TulkensH. (2006). “Cooperation, stability and self-enforcement in international environmental agreements: a conceptual discussion,” in: GuesnerieR.TulkensH. (eds.), The Design of Climate Policy, CESifo Seminar Series, The MIT Press, Boston.
15.
ChanderP. (2007). “The Gamma-core and Coalition Formation,” International Journal of Game Theory, 35(4): 539-556.
16.
d’AspremontC.JacqueminA.GabszewiczJ.J.WeymarkJ.A. (1983). “On the stability of collusive price leadership,” Canadian Journal of Economics, 16(1): 17-25.
17.
d’AspremontC.JacqueminA.GabszewiczJ.J. (1986). “On the stability of collusion,” chapter 8 (pp. 243-264) of J.E. Stiglitz and G.F. Mathewson (eds), New developments in the analysis of market structure, Cambridge (Mass.), The MIT Press.
18.
EyckmansJ.FinusM. (2004). “An almost ideal sharing scheme for coalition games with externality,” CLIMNEG Working Paper 62, Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
19.
EyckmansJ.TulkensH. (2003). “Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem,” Resource and Energy Economics, 25: 299-327.
20.
GerardF. (2006). Formation des coalitions pour les negotiations climatiques internationales: Une approche par le modele CWS. Master’s degree thesis, Department of Economics, Universite cath-olique de Louvain.
21.
GerardF. (2007). CWS 1.2, une mise a jour du module CWS, CLIMNEG Working Paper 80, CORE, Universite catholique de Louvain.
22.
GermainM.TointP.L.TulkensH. (1997). “Financial transfers to ensure international optimality in stock pollutant abatement,” in: F. Duchin, S. Faucheux, J. Gaudy and NicolaI. (eds.), Sustainability and firms: technological change and changing regulatory environment, Edward Elgar, Cel-tenham UK—Brookfield US.
23.
GermainM.TointP.L.TulkensH.de ZeeuwA. (2003). “Transfers to Sustain Dynamic Core-Theoretic Cooperation in International Stock Pollutant Control,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28: 79-99.
24.
NordhausW.D.YangZ. (1996). “A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies,” American Economic Review, 86(4): 741-765.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (2004). World Population to 2300. United Nations Publication: New York.
27.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (2005). World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision. United Nations Publication: New York.
28.
TulkensH. (1998). “Cooperation vs. free riding in international environmental affairs: two approaches,” in: N. Hanley and H. Folmer (eds), Game Theory and the Environment, Chapter 2, 3044, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
29.
World Resources Institute (2007). Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) version 4.0. Available at http://cait.wri.org.
30.
YangZ. (2008). Strategic Bargaining and Cooperation in Greenhouse Gas Mitigations—An Integrated Assessment Modeling Approach. The MIT Press.
