International Environmental Agreements and Trading Blocks — Can Issue Linkage Enhance Cooperation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the effect of designing international agreements that jointly determine environmental and trade policies on the participation level and aggregate welfare. This paper builds on the non-cooperative game approach of the International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) literature extending the basic model by introducing firms that trade in a global market. Countries choose the level of a tax on emissions and a tariff on imports: signatories enjoy tariff-free trade among themselves, impose a tariff to nonsignatories and a common emissions tax; nonsignatories levy a tariff on imports and a tax on domestic emissions. Resorting to numerical simulations, the paper shows increased participation to the joint agreement of around 70% of the total number of countries. These coalitions are not only much larger than the two-country coalition derived in the case without trade, but they also achieve substantial welfare improvements of around 60% of the welfare improvement the grand coalition provides over the coalition of two. The paper presents a series of numerical simulations to confirm the robustness of these results to changes in the parameters values.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".