ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND ...

122 Pages·2016·1.62 MB·English

ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF MULTILATERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND THEIR TIMING

A Dissertation
Presented to
The Academic Faculty

by

Xinping Tian

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in the
School of Economics

Georgia Institute of Technology
August 2016

COPYRIGHT@ 2016 BY XINPING TIAN
ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF MULTILATERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND THEIR TIMING

Approved by:

Dr. Tibor Besedeš, Advisor Dr. Juan Moreno-Cruz
School of Economics School of Economics
Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Haizheng Li Dr. Daniel Matisoff
School of Economics School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Erik Johnson Date Approved: July 7, 2016(cid:10)
School of Economics
Georgia Institute of Technology
To my parents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Professor
Tibor Besedeš for his guidance and help on writing this dissertation. He is always so
patient when instructing me and always so supportive when I need help. I really
appreciate all his time, understanding, and expertise which added considerably to my
graduate experience. I am also really thankful for the great example he has provided as an
excellent researcher and advisor.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Haizheng Li. I really
appreciate all the help he has provided and all his great suggestions on my research. I
would also like to thank Professor Erik Johnson for his guidance and advice on my
research and his help on my job seeking. I would like to thank Professor Juan Moreno-
Cruz for his encouragement and great suggestions on my research. I would like to thank
Professor Daniel Matisoff for his great advice on my dissertation. I would like to thank
Professor Seung Hoon Lee, Professor Byung-Cheol Kim, Professor Matthew Oliver, and
Professor Olga Shemyakina for their comments on my research and their valuable advice
on job seeking. I would like to thank Professor David Laband, Professor Vivek Ghosal,
and Professor Usha Nair-Reichert for their great suggestions and comments on my
research.
I would also like to thank my friends and my classmates at Georgia Tech. My
Ph.D. life becomes much easier and more interesting with their companions. I wish all of
them a happy life and a successful career.
iv
I would like to express my special thanks to my girlfriend, Zhe Zhai, for her
companion and support of the last three years. I feel extremely fortunate to have her in
my life.
My deepest gratitude goes to my parents for their selfless love throughout my
entire life. Their tremendous support, both spiritually and financially, enable me to finish
my graduate study and obtain my Ph.D. degree.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
SUMMARY x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF MULTILATERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Related Literature 9
2.3 Econometric Model 12
2.4 Data 15
2.5 Results 16
2.5.1 Economic determinants of small MEAs, large MEAs, and all MEAs
for year 1990 17
2.5.2 Economic determinants of small MEAs, large MEAs, and all MEAs
from 1980 to 2000 21
2.6 Robustness 29
2.7 Conclusion 35
3 ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF POLLUTION AND RESOURCE
AGREEMENTS 36
3.1 Introduction 36
3.2 Economic Determinants of MEA Cooperation 41
3.3 Econometric Models 43
vi
3.4 Results 47
3.4.1 Economic Determinants of Pollution Related Agreements 47
3.4.2 Economic Determinants of Resource Related Agreements 63
3.4.3 The Spillover Effects between Different Types of Agreements 74
3.5 Conclusion 76
4 ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF TIMING OF MULTILATERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 77
4.1 Introduction 77
4.2 Econometric Model 83
4.3 Data 86
4.4 Results 87
4.4.1 Economic Determinants of Various Hazard Rates 87
4.4.2 Fitted Hazard Rates Over Time 98
4.5 Conclusion 104
REFERENCES 106
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: The likelihood of two countries having an MEA 17
Table 2.2: The number of MEAs two countries have 20
Table 2.3: Alternative Specifications 32
Table 3.1: Results for pollution agreements with a small number of signatories 49
Table 3.2: Results for pollution agreements with a large number of signatories 52
Table 3.3: Results of quantile regressions for pollution agreements in 2000 60
Table 3.4: Results of dynamic panel data analysis for pollution agreements 62
Table 3.5: Results for resource agreements with a small number of signatories 64
Table 3.6: Results for resource agreements with a large number of signatories 65
Table 3.7: Results of quantile regressions for resource agreements in 2000 72
Table 3.8: Results of dynamic panel data analysis for resource agreements 73
Table 3.9: Results of spillover effects among pollution and resource agreements 75
Table 4.1: Gravity variables without GDPs 91
Table 4.2: Gravity variables with GDPs 94
Table 4.3: Gravity variable with EIA 95
Table 4.4: Gravity variables with various EIAs 96
Table 4.5: Gravity variables with EIA and trade 97
Table 4.6: Average Fitted Hazard 101

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: Annual count of multilateral environmental agreements 5
Figure 2.2: Probit results using MEAs with a small number of signatories 22
Figure 2.3: OLS results using MEAs with a small number of signatories 23
Figure 2.4: Probit results using MEAs with a large number of signatories 25
Figure 2.5: OLS results using MEAs with a large number of signatories 26
Figure 2.6: Probit results using all MEAs 27
Figure 2.7: OLS results using all MEAs 28
Figure 2.8: Probit results using alternative specifications 33
Figure 2.9: OLS results using alternative specifications 34
Figure 3.1: Annual Count of Pollution Agreements and Resource Agreements 39
Figure 3.2: Probit results using pollution MEAs with a small number of signatories 56
Figure 3.3: OLS results using pollution MEAs with a small number of signatories 57
Figure 3.4: Probit results using pollution MEAs with a large number of signatories 58
Figure 3.5: OLS results using pollution MEAs with a large number of signatories 59
Figure 3.6: Probit results using resource MEAs with a small number of signatories 68
Figure 3.7: OLS results using resource MEAs with a small number of signatories 69
Figure 3.8: Probit results using resource MEAs with a large number of signatories 70
Figure 3.9: OLS results using resource MEAs with a large number of signatories 71
Figure 4.1: Annual count of pollution agreements over time 79
Figure 4.2: Percentage of countries having a pollution agreement 80
Figure 4.3: Fitted Hazard of Having 1st and 2nd Agreements 99
Figure 4.4: Fitted Hazard of Having 3rd, 4th, and 5th Agreements 100
ix
Figure 4.5: Fitted Hazards of Having the 1st and 2nd Agreement Based on Size 102
Figure 4.6: Fitted Hazards of Having the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Agreement Based on Size 103

x