Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:09:15.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fair division theory and climate change policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

CARSTEN HELM
CARSTEN HELM*
Affiliation:
Department of Law and Economics, Technical University Darmstadt, Marktplatz 15, D-64283 Darmstadt. Tel: +49 6151 16-2095. Fax: +49 6151 16-6043. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes the fair division of common property resources when monetary compensations are feasible. A prominent example is the fair division of the atmosphere's limited absorptive capacity for greenhouse gases. I propose a solution that is Pareto efficient and satisfies the axiomatic fair division criteria of individual rationality, stand-alone upper bound, and a version of envy-freeness. The latter criterion is adapted to problems where monetary compensations can be used to facilitate the fair division of the common resource. Applied to climate change, the solution implies that developing countries should participate in emission reduction efforts, but should be fully compensated for their incremental abatement costs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 441 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkan, A., Demange, G., and Gale, D. 1991, ‘Fair allocation of indivisible goods and criteria of justice’, Econometrica 59: 1023–1039.Google Scholar
Arnsperger, C. 1994, ‘Envy-freeness and distributive justice’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 155–186.Google Scholar
Aunan, K., Berntsen, T., O'Connor, D., Persson, T.H., Vennemo, H., and Zhai, F. 2007, ‘Benefits and costs to China of a climate policy’, Environment and Development Economics 12: 471–497.Google Scholar
Barbanel, J.B. and Brams, S.J. 2004, ‘Cake division with minimal cuts: envy-free procedures for three persons, four persons, and beyond’, Mathematical Social Sciences 48: 251–269.Google Scholar
Bevia, C. 1998, ‘Fair allocation in a general model with indivisible goods’, Review of Economic Design 3: 195–213.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. 1997, ‘Financing environmental policies in the South: experience from the multilateral ozone fund’, International Environmental Affairs 9: 179–218.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. 1997, ‘Are tradable carbon emission quotas internationally acceptable? An inquiry with diplomats as country representatives’, Technical report, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Böhringer, C. and Helm, C. 2008, ‘On the fair division of greenhouse gas abatement cost’, Resource and Energy Economics 30: 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhringer, C. and Rutherford, T. 2002, ‘Carbon abatement and international spillovers’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brams, S.J. and Taylor, A.D. 1996, Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. and Thomson, W. 1987, ‘The Walrasian mechanism from equal division is not monotonic with respect to variations in the number of consumers’, Journal of Public Economics 32: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, J., Wise, M., and Barns, D.W. 1995, ‘Carbon coalitions: the cost and effectiveness of energy agreements to alter trajectories of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions’, Energy Policy 23: 309–335.Google Scholar
Foley, D.K. 1967, ‘Resource allocation in the public sector’, Yale Economic Essays 7: 45–98.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, Paris: IEA Publications.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1690/1963, Two Treatises of Civil Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., and Williams, L. 2006, ‘The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries’, Environment and Development Economics 11: 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelowa, A., Stronzik, M., Eckermann, F., and Hunt, A. 2003, ‘Transaction costs of the Kyoto mechanisms’, Climate Policy 3: 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulin, H. 1991, ‘Welfare bounds in the fair division problem’, Journal of Economic Theory 54: 321–337.Google Scholar
Moulin, H. 1992, ‘An application of the Shapley value to fair division with money’, Econometrica 60: 1331–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulin, H. 1995, Cooperative Microeconomics: A Game-Theoretic Introduction, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulin, H. and Thomson, W. 1988, ‘Can everyone benefit from growth? Two difficulties’, Journal of Mathematical Economics 17: 339–345.Google Scholar
Rose, A., Stevens, B., Edmonds, J., and Wise, M. 1998, ‘International equity and differentiation in global warming policy’, Environmental and Resource Economics 12: 25–51.Google Scholar
Schmeidler, D. and Vind, K. 1972, ‘Fair net trades’, Econometrica 40: 637–642.Google Scholar
Steinhaus, H. 1948, ‘The problem of fair division’, Econometrica 16: 101–104.Google Scholar
Tadenuma, K. and Thomson, W. 1993, ‘The fair allocation of an indivisible good when monetary compensations are possible’, Mathematical Social Sciences 25: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. and Varian, H.R. 1985, ‘Theories of justice based on symmetry’, in Hurwicz, L., Schmeidler, D., and Sonnenschein, H. (eds), Social Goals and Social Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–129.Google Scholar
Varian, H.R. 1974, ‘Equity, envy, and efficiency’, Journal of Economic Theory 9: 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H.R. 1976, ‘Two problems in the theory of fairness’, Journal of Public Economics 5: 249–260.Google Scholar
Young, H.P. 1994, Equity in Theory and Practice, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar