Predicting paris: Multi-method approaches to forecast the outcomes of global climate negotiations

Politics and Governance

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 172-187

  Sprinz, Detlef F ^a,b   De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno ^c   Kallbekken, Steffen ^d   Stokman, Frans ^e   Sælen, Håkon ^d,f   Thomson, Robert ^g  

^a POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH OSLO CICERO   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^g UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Climate policy; Climate regime; Expert survey; Forecasting; Global negotiations; Paris agreement; Prediction; Simulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016042549     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21832463     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17645/pag.v4i3.654     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Achen, C. H. (2006). Institutional realism and bargaining models. In R. Thomson, F. N. Stokman, C. Achen, & T. König (Eds.) The European Union decides (pp. 86-123). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1951)
3. Bang, G., Hovi, J., & Sprinz, D. F. (2012). US presidents and the failure to ratify multilateral environmental agreements. Climate Policy, 12(6), 755-763. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.699788
4. Bueno de Mesquita, B. (2009). Recipe for failure—Why Copenhagen will be a bust, and other prophecies from the foreign-policy world’s leading predictio-neer. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://foreign policy.com/2009/10/19/recipe-for-failure
5. Bueno de Mesquita, B. (2011). A new model for predict-ing policy choices. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(1), 65-87. doi:10.1177/0738894210388 127
6. de Caricat, J.A.N. (1994). Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendus à la pluralité des voix. Paris, France: Imprimerie Royale. (Original work published in 1785). Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/essaisurlapplica00cond
7. Dijkstra, J., & Van Assen, M. A. (2008). Transferring goods or splitting a resource pool. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 17-36.
8. Dijkstra, J., Van Assen, M. A. L. M., & Stokman, F. N. (2008). Outcomes of collective decisions with exter-nalities predicted. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 20(4), 414-441.
9. Dimitrov, R. S. (2010). Inside Copenhagen: The state of climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 18-24. doi:10.1162/glep.2010.10.2.18
10. Genovese, F. (2014). States’ interests at international climate negotiations: New measures of bargaining positions. Environmental Politics, 23(4), 610-631.
11. Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F., & Bang, G. (2012). Why the United States did not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol: German, Norwegian, and US perspectives. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 129-150. doi:10.1177/1354066110380964
12. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2015). Predicting Paris: Fore-casting key outcomes from COP 21 using an expert survey. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282974577_Predicting_Paris_-_Forecasting_key_outcomes_from_COP_21_using_an_exp ert_survey
13. Luterbacher, U., & Sprinz, D. F. (Eds.). (2001). Interna-tional relations and global climate change. Cam-bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14. Luterbacher, U., & Sprinz, D. F. (Eds.). (in press). Global climate change in an international context. Cam-bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15. Michaelowa, K., & Michaelowa, A. (2012). Negotiating climate change. Climate Policy, 12(5), 527-533. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.693393
16. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Ray, J. L., & Russett, B. (1996). The future as arbiter of theoretical controversies: Predictions, explanations and the end of the cold war. British Journal of Politi-cal Science, 26(4), 441-470.
18. Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. K. (1979). Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86(6), 574-594.
19. Schroeder, H. & Lovell, H. (2012). The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international cli-mate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12(1), 23-37.
20. Sprinz, D. F., & Bueno de Mesquita, B. (2015). Predicting Paris: Forecasting the outcomes of UNFCCC COP-21 with the Predictioneer’s Game. Retrieved from http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/sprinz/doc/Sprinz_BuenodeMesquita.2015.PredictingParis.Summary.ResearchGate.pdf
21. Stokman, F. N. (2009). Is a Copenhagen climate treaty still possible? DECIDE. Retrieved from http://www. stokman.org/artikel/09Stok.Copenhagenstudy.pdf
22. Stokman, F. N. (2014). Policy networks: History. In R. Alhajj & J. Rokne (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social net-work analysis and mining (pp. 1291-1301). New York, NY: Springer.
23. Stokman, F. N. (2015). Policy-oriented exchange net-works: Was a Copenhagen climate treaty possible? Scientific analysis providing new insights for agree-ment and a better treaty for the planet. In J. Pei, F. Silvestri, & J. Tang (Eds.), Advances in social networks and data mining (pp. 770-778). New York, NY: ACM.
24. Stokman, F. N., & Thomson, R. (2015). Forecasting the Paris 2015 UNFCCC negotiations. The Exchange Model's analysis of developments and potential ob-stacles to reaching an agreement. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282974338_Forecasting_the_Paris_2015_UNFCCC_Negotiations_The_Exchange_Model's_Analysis_of_Developments_and_Potential_Obstacles_to_Reaching_an_Agreement
25. Stokman, F. N., Van der Knoop, J. V., & Van Oosten, R. (2013). Modeling collective decision making. In V. Nee, T. A. B. Snijders, & R. Wittek (Eds.), Handbook of rational choice social research (pp. 151-182). Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26. Stokman, F. N., & Van Oosten, R. (1994). The exchange of voting positions: An object-oriented model of poli-cy networks. In B. Bueno de Mesquita & F. N. Stok-man (Eds.), European Community decision-making: Models, applications, and comparisons (pp. 105-127). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27. Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press.
28. Tetlock, P., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group.
29. Thomson, R., Stokman, F. N., Achen, C. H., & Koenig, T. (Eds.). (2006). The European Union decides. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Van Assen, M. A. L. M., Stokman, F. N., & Van Oosten, R. (2003). Conflict measures in cooperative exchange models of collective decision making. Rationality and Society, 15(1), 85-112.
31. Weiler, F. (2012). Determinants of bargaining success in the climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12(5), 552-574.