Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barrett Oxf Rev Econ Policy-1990
Barrett Oxf Rev Econ Policy-1990
SCOTT BARRETT
London Business School1
Suppose that land is communally owned. Every person has the right to hunt, till, or mine the land. This form of
ownership fails to concentrate the cost associated with any person's exercise of his communal right on that person.
If a person seeks to maximize the value of his communal rights, he will tend to overhunt and overwork the land
because some of the costs of his doing so are borne by others. The stock of game and the richness of the soil will
be diminished too quickly. It is conceivable that those who own these rights, i.e. every member of the community,
can agree to curtail the rate at which they work the lands if negotiating and policing costs are z e r o . . . [However,]
negotiating costs will be large because it is difficult for many persons to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement,
especially when each hold-out has the right to work the land as fast as he pleases. [Furthermore,] even if an
agreement among all can be reached, we must yet take account of the costs of policing the agreement, and these
may be large, also.
Demsetz (1967, pp. 354-5)
68 0266—9O3X/9O$3.O0 © OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AND THE OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY LIMITED
S. Barrett
way out of the common property dilemma, as property dilemma is agreement. Yet, just as in the
Demsetz makes clear, is intervention by 'the state, situation Demsetz describes, there are strong incen-
the courts, or the leaders of the community' (em- tives for governments not to co-operate, or to defect
phasis added). In Demsetz's example, the interven- from an agreement should one be reached. This is
tion manifests itself in the development of private the crux of the problem of managing global com-
property rights to the resource, but the intervention mon property, and what distinguishes this problem
could just as easily involve regulation. from the long studied one of common property
management under the jurisdictional control of a
The reason this view is disquieting is that for global central authority.
common property resources there is no World
Government empowered to intervene for the good Attempts to correct global, unidirectional exter-
of all. To be sure, there do exist international nalities will encounter similar difficulties. Con-
institutions—most notably the United Nations sider the problem where certain activities by one
Environment Programme—which have been given country harm all others. A good example is defor-
the mandate to co-ordinate international environ- estation of Amazonia by Brazil. The rain forests
mental protection efforts. But none of these insti- play a crucial role in the protection of biological
2
See Lyster (1985).
3
See Coase (1960). Bargaining has in fact taken place at the bilateral level. A famous example is the Trail Smelter case.
The Canadian smelter emitted pollutants that crossed the US border. The case was arbitrated by an international tribunal
comprised of an American, a Canadian, and a Belgian. The tribunal found that Canada was liable for damages, and also
established emission regulations for the plant. The judicial decisions on this case make fascinating reading. Sec Trail Smelter
Arbitral Tribunal (1939, 1941).
4
Demsetz(1967, p. 357) argues that in the large numbers case, 'itmay be too costly to internalize effects through the market-
place'. Elsewhere, Demsetz (1964) argues that it might in fact be optimal for the externality not to be internalized since the
costs of intcmalization should include the costs of transacting the agreement. But even then the free-rider problem would
prevail; intervention, were it possible, might still be desired.
69
OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL. 6, NO. 1
ing global externalities. But in the absence of a co-operation may sometimes wear the disguise of
World Government these mechanisms cannot be co-operation, and section III shows that an outcome
employed without the consent of the sovereign better than the purely nationalistic one can emerge
nations themselves. Every country would be better even where binding agreements are absent. Effec-
off if it agreed to participate in the revelation tive management of global environmental resources
exercise. But each would do even better if others does however seem to rely on the more formal in-
participated and it did not. All will therefore choose stitution of international law. Section IV discusses
not to participate. The crux of the problem of the rudiments of a model that explains why coun-
correcting global externalities, like that of manag- tries would co-operate when the free-rider problem
ing global common property, is that global optimal- must surely bite, and what international agreements
ity demands global co-operation, and yet the incen- mean for global social welfare and the welfare of
tives facing individual countries work in the oppo- citizens of individual countries. Just as failure to
site direction. co-operate may not lead to tragedy, so co-operation
may not buy us very much. Indeed, combining the
The theoretical arguments for supposing that co- analysis of the potential gains to co-operation with
operation will not develop are compelling. But this model of formal agreements, it can be shown
70
S. Barrett
emissions does not entirely offset the one country' s level, while each country's marginal abatement
extra abatement). The extent of the benefit enjoyed benefit function must depend on world-wide abate-
by the conserving country will clearly depend on ment
the actions taken by the other countries, and of
course all countries are subject to a similar calculus. In the absence of any co-operation, each country
It is this interdependence which makes calculation will maximize its own net benefits of abatement
of the potential gains to co-operative management and in so doing will choose a level of abatement at
of global common property more difficult. It is which its own marginal abatement cost equals its
better, then, that we work with a specific model. own marginal abatement benefit.3 This is the non-
co-operative (Nash equilibrium) solution to this
To fix ideas, reconsider the problem of global game, and it is shown as abatement level Q' in
pollution. Suppose that the relevant number of Figure 1. Were countries to co-operate fully, they
countries is N. One might think that N would would seek to maximize the global net benefits of
include all the world's countries, but that need not abatement. Since we have assumed that all coun-
be so, a point we return to later. Let us however tries are identical, the global net benefits of abate-
suppose for simplicity that N does include all ment can be defined as the sum of every country's
Figure 1
Graphical Illustration of the Potential Gains to Co-operation
0 Q* Q" abatement
5
I tm assuming here that every country believes that its choice of an abatement level will not alter the choices of the other
countries; that is, I am assuming zero conjectural variations. One can impose positive or negative conjectures, but these as-
sumptions would be ad hoc. Alternatively, we could determine a consistent conjectures equilibrium—that is, one in whose
neighbourhood every country's conjectures are confirmed by the responses of the other countries. Corncs and Sandier (1983)
find that consistent conjectures can lead to even greater overuse of the resource compared with the Nash equilibrium.
6
This isof course nothing but a restatement ofSamuelson's (1954) rule for the optimal provision of public goods. For an
alternative presentation of these principles, see Dasgupta's (1982) model of a global fishery.
71
OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL 6, NO. 1
One sees immediately that the full co-operative Once we permit alternative strategies to be chosen,
solution demands greater abatement but, equally, widen the choice sets themselves, and allow moti-
gives to every country a greater net benefit. For a vations other than self-interest (narrowly defined)
given size of N, the difference between Q' and Q" to guide decision-making, global environmental
can be shown to depend on the slopes of the protection can be enhanced.
marginal abatement benefit and cost curves. De-
note the (absolute value of the) slope of each (i) Supergames
country's marginal abatement benefit curve by the
letter b, and the slope of each country's marginal In the above games, strategies are chosen once, and
abatement cost curve by the letter c. Then it can be the games are never repeated. But in the common
shown that the discrepancy will tend to be small property game countries are unavoidably locked in
whenever clb is either 'large' or 'small' (see Bar- a continuing relationship, and this leaves open the
rett, 1989). The approximate implication of this possibility that they may retaliate and hence that co-
result is that fairly innocuous pollutants (that is, operative strategies may be countenanced. Sup-%
pollutants for which b is small) that are very costly pose then that all countries choose one of two
to control (that is, that have a large c) do not cause strategies: they either choose the full co-operative
7
If countries choose not to co-operate in the initial period, they need not choose Q' in this period. The reason for this is that
the optimal non-co-operative abatement level is contingent on the abatement levels chosen by the other countries.
1
Axelrod's (1984) tournaments of the repeated prisoners' dilemma game suggest that behaviour in the disguise of co-
operation may well emerge. Whether his findings carry over to the common property game with many players, however, is
as yet unknown.
72
S. Barrett
which should not This ambiguity may help ex- reduction in global emission. Matching might
plain why unilateral action to reduce CFC emis- improve matters—Guttman (1978) shows that un-
sions was limited (US Environmental Protection der certain conditions matching can sustain the full
Agency, 1988, p. 30576): co-operative solution. But in the management of
global common property, matching is rarely in-
In 1978 the United States restricted the use of CFCs in
aerosols. While several nations adopted similar restric- voked. Recently, Norway announced that it would
tions (e.g. Sweden, Canada, Norway) and others par- allocate one-tenth of one per cent of its GDP each
tially cut back their use (European nations, Japan), year to a fund on climate change if other industrial
there was no widespread movement to folio w the United countries matched its contribution (on a GDP per-
States' lead. Concerns existed then that other nations centage basis). The offer has yet to be taken up. En-
had failed to act because the United States and a few vironmental groups in the United States have ar-
other nations were making the reductions thought nec- gued that the US should unilaterally surpass the
essary to protect the ozone layer. Similar concerns exist reductions specified in the Montreal Protocol and at
today that unilateral action could result in 'free riding' the same time impose restrictions on imports of
by some other nations. products containing or made with CFCs from
It is not obvious how sufferers of a unidirectional countries that fail to agree to make the same reduc-
73
OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL. 6, NO. 1
have joined those already in the 30 per cent club, and Britain acting for Canada). In late 1893 the Tribu-
several Eastern European countries have committed nal decided that the United States did not have
themselves to reduce transfrontier emissions by 30 per territorial jurisdiction over the Bering Sea, and
cenL SO2 emissions in the United Kingdom have hence could not keep Canadian sealing vessels out
indeed fallen by 37 per cent since 1970, but the levels of these waters. This effectively sanctioned open-
of high-stack emissions which affect remote areas have access harvesting of the species, and co-operation
not fallen. In 1970, when the 37 per cent fall began, we
proved impossible to secure (Paterson and Wilen,
were the largestemitterin Western Europe. In 1984, we
are still the largest emitter. NOx emissions have not 1977, p. 94):
fallen. In Western Europe only West Germany depos- Following the decision of the Tribunal, the diplomatic
its more SO2 in other countries than does the United efforts of both Great Britain and the United States had
Kingdom, and further significant reductions cannot be been directed to convincing the other to reduce its
achieved by either without controls. sealing in outer to allow the herd to recover from earlier
depradations. No agreement could be reached and in
The Committee's concern in this passage lies less 1897 the United States unilaterally forbade its citizens
with the net benefits to the UK of reducing emis- to engage in pelagic sealing in the North Pacific. At the
sions than with how UK abatement has lagged same time quota adjustments were made as the herd
10
For legal background on this treaty and its successors, see Lyster (1985).
74
S. Barrett
like the number of signatories, the terms of the reviewed and altered when necessary and often at
agreement, and the abatement levels of all non- regular intervals. The Montreal Protocol is being
signatories to be determined jointly. We also reviewed in 1990, and is then expected to be
require that the agreement itself is stable. A stable strengthened. That this agreement is self-enforc-
agreement is one where non-signatories do not wish ing is suggested by a comment made by the US
to sign the agreement and signatories do not wish to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1988,
renege on their commitment. Then it can be shown p. 30573):
that for identical countries with linear marginal
EPA judged that the obvious need for broad interna-
abatement benefit and cost functions a stable inter-
tional adherence to the Protocol counseled against the
national environmental agreement always exists United S tates' deviatingfromthe Protocol, because any
(Barrett, 1989). significant deviation could lessen other countries' mo-
tivation to participate.
The solution to this problem exhibits many of the
features of actual agreements. The net benefits Self-enforcement is essential in any model of inter-
realized by both signatories and non-signatories are national environmental agreements because nation
higher than in the earlier problem where negotia- states cannot be forced to perform their legal obli-
11
See Lyster (1985) for a discussion of other compliance mechanisms.
75
OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL 6, NO. 1
USSR). To become a signatory to the Antarctic terms) when N is 'large', the marginal abatement
Treaty of 1959 a country must maintain a scientific cost curve is flat, and the marginal abatement
research station in the Antarctic and be unani- benefit curve steep. However, we already know
mously accepted by existing parlies to the agree- that when clb is 'small' the benefit of having an
ment. In these cases non-signatories may quite agreement is diminished. It is commonly asserted
clearly be affected by how the signatories manage that treaties signed by a large number of countries
the resource. Signatories to the Antarctic treaty accomplish little of substance: 'The greater the
voted recently to allow mineral exploration, despite number of participants in the formulation of a
appeals by non-signatories to designate Antarctica treaty, the weakeror more ambiguous its provisions
a nature reserve. arc likely to be since they have toreflectcompromises
making them acceptable to every State involved'
In the above model, N was assumed to represent (Lyster, 1985, p. 4). This analysis suggests that the
both the number of countries that emit a (uniformly reason treaties signed by a large number of countries
mixed) pollutant into the environment and the appear to effect little additional abatement is not
number harmed as a consequence. However, for that the signatories are heterogeneous—although
some problems the number of emitters may be less that may be a contributing factor. Nor is the reason
Table 1
Estimates of the Reduction in Percentage Ozone Depletion Effected by the Montreal Protocol
76
S. Barrett
ment and global welfare will be significantly better banned the use of CFCs in non-essential aerosols in
off, contrary to what the figures in Table 1 imply. the late 1970s, and yet other countries did not
What the model does suggest is that so many reciprocate.13 Unilateral restrictions on pelagic
countries would not have committed themselves to sealing in the North Pacific by the US were not
the agreement in the first place unless they already duplicated by Canada. We have also seen that
intended to take substantial unilateral action. In countries may wish to give in to their moral beliefs
other words, although the agreement itself may and embrace a less insular view of their responsi-
effect only little additional abatement, the very fact bilities. An important question is whether 'unsel-
that so many countries have signed the agreement fish' unilateral action can be expected to have a
suggests that the potential gains to co-operation positive influence on international negotiations. If
were in this instance not very great one country (or group of countries) abates more
than the Nash non-co-operative solution demands,
What does the model predict about the prospects of and all others choose the abatement levels that are
an agreement being reached on global warming? optimal for them in anon-co-operative setting, will
N will again be large, and this will militate against the environment be any better protected when inter-
significant united action. However, in this case national treaties are later negotiated?
We have already seen that such 'unselfish' unilat- It is important to note that the US and the European
eral actions need not be matched by other countries. Community announced their intentions to phase
The United States, Canada, Sweden, and Norway out production and consumption of the ozone-
1J
The analysis given here is by necessity over-simplified. For a more detailed analysis, see Barrett (1990).
" Reciprocity was certainly not full. The European Community, for example, passed two decisions limiting production
capacity of the so-called hard CFCs (CFC-11 and -12) and reducing their use in aerosols by 30 per cent.
77
OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, VOL. 6, NO. 1
depleting chemicals by the end of the century after col within the European Community. These provi-
the Montreal Protocol came into force but before re- sions will help increase the efficiency of attaining
negotiation talks had started. It would be wrong, the total emission reduction implicit in the agree-
however, to ascribe these developments simply to ment, although they almost certainly do not go far
'unselfish' behaviour. After all, the world's largest enough.
manufacturer of CFCs, US-based Du Pont, an-
nounced its intention to phase out production of (iv) Side Payments
CFCs by the end of the century before the phase-out
decisions were taken by the US and EC. Three days The equilibrium in the model of international envi-
after the EC decided to phase out CFCs, the chair- ronmental agreements is determined by a concept
man of the leading European producer of CFCs, of stability that prohibits side payments. Animpor-
ICI, declared that production of CFCs should cease tant question is whether side payments might effect
'as soon after 1998 as is practicable'. Much more a Pareto improvement. To investigate this issue,
is at work here.14 reconsider the concept of stability employed in the
model. In equilibrium, non-signatories do better
(Hi) Efficient Co-operation than signatories, but no country can do better
14
See Barrett (1990) for an analysis of these developments.
15
The United States and the UK continued to contribute to the Fund even after withdrawing their funding from UNESCO.
78
S. Barrett
they would not have signed it—but the poor coun- example, become increasingly clear that the suc-
tries may not have signed the Convention were it cess of the Montreal Protocol will ultimately hinge
not for the Fund. Though the Fund is small, the on the accession of non-signatories to the Protocol,
mechanism could prove instrumental in protecting Concern has specially been voiced about the need to
many of the world's remaining natural environ- get the poor countries—and, in particular, China
ments, including the tropical rain forests. and Indian—to sign the Protocol. These countries
have declared their need for financial assistance,
The World Heritage Convention is unique among and the issue of setting up a global fund for protect-
intemational environmental agreements for incor- ing the ozone layer is likely to dominate discussion
porating side payments. But the need for side at the next meeting of the Protocol's signatories. It
payments is not unique to the conservation of would seem to be something that cannot be avoided,
natural environments and wildlife. It has, for
REFERENCES
79