Funding Global Environmental Public Goods Through Multilateral Financial Mechanisms

  • Nathan W. ChanEmail author


Multilateral financial mechanisms (MFMs) are becoming increasingly prevalent as a means for addressing global public good problems. MFMs raise funds from member countries through “burden sharing” arrangements, and these funds are disbursed as grants to finance environmental projects around the world. These projects are impure public goods, as they help achieve global (public) objectives like climate change mitigation, and they also generate local (private) benefits for recipient countries. This paper constructs a model of MFMs and explores how impure public goods influence burden sharing arrangements. I design an optimal burden sharing mechanism and show how resultant environmental quality and welfare are affected by the choice of grant allocations. Counterintuitively, grant reallocations can be redistributive, Pareto improving, or immiserating, and these results are shaped by the initial distribution of grants and by substitute and complement relationships between private and public consumption.


Burden sharing Environmental agreements Impure public goods Joint production Public goods 

JEL Classification

D71 F53 H87 Q50 


  1. Andreoni J (1988) Privately provided public goods in a large economy: the limits of altruism. J Public Econ 35(1):57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. J Polit Econ 97(6):1447–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100(401):464–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Pap 46:878–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchholz W, Sandler T (2017) Successful leadership in global public good provision: incorporating behavioural approaches. Environ Resour Econ 67(3):591–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchholz W, Cornes R, Peters W (2008) Existence, uniqueness and some comparative statics for ratio and Lindahl equilibria. J Econ 95(2):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchholz W, Cornes R, Rübbelke D (2011) Interior matching equilibria in a public good economy: an aggregative game approach. J Public Econ 95(7–8):639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Public Econ 52(3):309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan NW (2015) Misinformation and its implications for green markets. Strat Behav Environ 5(3–4):301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan NW, Kotchen MJ (2014) A generalized impure public good and linear characteristics model of green consumption. Resour Energy Econ 37:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornes R, Hartley R (2007) Aggregative public good games. J Public Econ Theory 9(2):201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornes R, Sandler T (1984) Easy riders, joint production, and public goods. Econ J 94(375):580–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornes R, Sandler T (1994) The comparative static properties of the impure public good model. J Public Econ 54(3):403–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornes R, Sandler T (1996) The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornes R, Hartley R, Sandler T (1999) Equilibrium existence and uniqueness in public good models: an elementary proof via contraction. J Public Econ Theory 1(4):499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutta PK, Radner R (2009) A strategic analysis of global warming: theory and some numbers. J Econ Behav Organ 71(2):187–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eyckmans J (1997) Nash implementation of a proportional solution to international pollution control problems. J Environ Econ Manag 33(3):314–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eyckmans J (1999) Strategy proof uniform effort sharing schemes for transfrontier pollution problems. Environ Resour Econ 14(2):165–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finus M, Rübbelke DTG (2013) Public good provision and ancillary benefits: the case of climate agreements. Environ Resour Econ 56(2):211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. GEF (2010) System for transparent allocation of resources (STAR). Technical report, Global Environment Facility, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. GEF (2013) GEF-6 replenishment: overview of financial structure. Technical report, Global Environment Facility, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. GEF (2014) GEF-6 indicative STAR allocations. Technical report, Global Environment Facility, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  24. GEF (2016) 25 years of the GEF. Technical report, Global Environment Facility, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerber A, Wichardt PC (2009) Providing public goods in the absence of strong institutions. J Public Econ 93(3–4):429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harstad B (2012) Climate contracts: a game of emissions, investments, negotiations, and renegotiations. Rev Econ Stud 79(4):1527–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoel M, Schneider K (1997) Incentives to participate in an international environmental agreement. Environ Resour Econ 9(2):153–170Google Scholar
  28. Kaneko M (1977) The ratio equilibrium and a voting game in a public goods economy. J Econ Theory 16(2):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolstad CD (2007) Systematic uncertainty in self-enforcing international environmental agreements. J Environ Econ Manag 53(1):68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kotchen MJ (2005) Impure public goods and the comparative statics of environmentally friendly consumption. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2):281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotchen MJ (2006) Green markets and private provision of public goods. J Polit Econ 114(4):816–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindahl E (1958) Just taxation—a positive solution. In: Musgrave RA, Peacock AT (eds) Classics in the theory of public finance. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mas-Colell A, Silvestre J (1989) Cost share equilibria: a Lindahlian approach. J Econ Theory 47(2):239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murdoch JC, Sandler T (1984) Complementarity, free riding, and the military expenditures of NATO allies. J Public Econ 25(1–2):83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nordhaus W (2015) Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am Econ Rev 105(4):1339–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pittel K, Rübbelke DTG (2008) Climate policy and ancillary benefits: a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change. Ecol Econ 68(1):210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roemer JE (2015) Kantian optimization: a microfoundation for cooperation. J Public Econ 127:45–57 The Nordic modelCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandler T (1977) Impurity of defense: an application to the economics of alliances. Kyklos 30(3):443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandler T, Forbes JF (1980) Burden sharing, strategy, and the design of NATO. Econ Inq 18(3):425–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shibayama K, Fraser I (2014) Nonhomothetic growth models for the environmental Kuznets curve. Int Econ Rev 55(3):919–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stone B Jr (2012) The city and the coming climate. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations