A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-17

  Carlsson, Fredrik ^a   Kataria, Mitesh ^b   Krupnick, Alan ^c   Lampi, Elina ^a   Löfgren, åsa ^a   Qin, Ping ^d,e   Sterner, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b Institute of Economics   (Germany)

^c RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^d PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e RENMIN UNIVERSITY OF CHINA   (China)

Author keywords

Burden sharing; China; Climate; Fairness; United States

Indexed keywords

BURDEN SHARING; CHINA; CLIMATE; FAIRNESS; UNITED STATES;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECONOMICS;

CARBON DIOXIDE;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MITIGATION;

CHINA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84870207230     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adams J.S. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1965, 267-299. Academic Press, New York. L. Berkowitz (Ed.).
2. Beijing Statistical Yearbook 2009, China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing.
3. Buchholz W., Peters W. A Rawlsian approach to international cooperation. Kyklos 2005, 58:25-44.
4. 2 containment. Journal of Energy Engineering 1992, 2:122-135.
5. Böhringer V., Helm C. On the fair division of greenhouse gas abatement cost. Resource and Energy Economics 2008, 30:260-276.
6. Cai B., Cameron T.A., Gerdes G. Distributional preferences and the incidence of costs and benefits in climate change policy. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 46:429-458.
7. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89:147-152.
8. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Lampi E., Löfgren å., Sterner T. Is fairness blind? The effect of framing on preferences for effort-sharing rules. Ecological Economics 2011, 70:1529-1535.
9. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Krupnick A., Lampi E., Löfgren å., Qin P., Chung S., Sterner T. Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Land Economics 2012, 88:326-340.
10. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics 2003, 12:281-294.
11. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001, 41:179-192.
12. Cazorla M., Toman M. International Equity and Climate Change Policy. Climate Issue Brief 2000, vol. 27. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
13. Champ P., Bishop R. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:383-402.
14. Champ P., Bishop R., Brown T., McCollum D. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33:151-162.
15. Cook J., Whittington D., Canh D., Johnson F.R., Nyamete A. Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue Vietnam. Economic Inquiry 2007, 45:100-114.
16. Dannenberg A., Sturm B., Vogt C. Do equity preferences matter for climate negotiators? An experimental investigation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 47:91-109.
17. Deutsch M. Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?. Journal of Social Issues 1975, 31:137-149.
18. Eyckmans J., Tulkens H. Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem. Resource and Energy Economics 2003, 25:299-327.
19. Falk A., Fehr E., Fischbacher U. On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry 2003, 41:20-26.
20. Güth W., Kliemt H., Levati M.V. (Over-)stylizing experimental findings and theorizing with sweeping generality. Perspectives in Moral Science. Contributions from Philosophy, Economics, and Politics in Honour of Hartmut Kliemt 2009, 239-249. Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt. M. Baurmann, B. Lahno (Eds.).
21. Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 1996, 33:307-317.
22. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007-Synthesis Report 2007, IPCC, Geneva.
23. Johansson-Stenman O., Svedsäter H. Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 2008, 8(1). Article 41.
24. Klinsky S., Dowlatabadi H. Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy 2009, 9:88-108.
25. Konow J. Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review 2000, 90:1072-1092.
26. Krinsky I., Robb L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68:715-719.
27. Krupnick A., Hoffmann S., Qin P. The Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions in China. Working Paper 2010, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
28. Lange A., Löschel A., Vogt C., Ziegler A. On the self-interested use of equity in international climate negotiations. European Economic Review 2010, 54:359-375.
29. Lange A., Vogt C., Ziegler A. On the importance of equity in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Energy Economics 2007, 29:545-562.
30. List J., Sinha P., Taylor M. Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 2005, 6(2). Article 2.
31. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
32. Lusk J., Schroeder T. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 85:840-856.
33. Miller D. Holding nations responsible. Ethics 2004, 114:240-268.
34. Pitlik H., Schwarz G., Bechter B., Brandl B. Near is my shirt but nearer is my skin: ideology or self-interest as determinants of public opinion on fiscal policy issues. Kyklos 2011, 64:271-290.
35. Posner E.A., Sunstein C.R. Climate change justice. Georgetown Law Journal 2008, 96:1565-1612.
36. Ringius L., Torvanger A., Underdal A. Burden sharing and fairness principles in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2002, 2:1-22.
37. Rose A., Stevens B., Edmonds J., Wise M. international equity and differentiation in global warming policy: An application to tradeable emissions permits. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 12:25-51.
38. Tajfel H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology 1982, 33:1-30.
39. Torvanger A., Godal O. An evaluation of pre-Kyoto differentiation proposals for national greenhouse gas abatement targets. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2004, 4:65-91.
40. Torvanger A., Ringius I. Criteria for evaluation of burden-sharing rules in international climate policy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2002, 2:221-235.
41. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.
42. Tyler T.R., Boeckmann R.J., Smith H.J., Huo Y.J. Social Justice in a Diverse Society 1997, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
43. Whittington D., Smith V., Okorafor A., Okore A., Liu J., McPhail A. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22:205-225.
44. Wiser R. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics 2007, 62:419-432.
45. World Bank World Development Indicators 2009, World Bank, Washington, DC.