Risk and Transaction Costs

  • Frauke Eckermann
  • Marcus Stronzik
  • Alistair Hunt
  • Tim Taylor
Part of the ZEW Economic Studies book series (ZEW, volume 26)


Within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol the industrialised countries committed themselves to a reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions during the period from 2008 to 2012. The flexible mechanisms defined within the Kyoto Protocol are designed to achieve cost-effectiveness of emissions reduction by allowing countries to reduce emissions abroad, either in other Annex B countries, or in non Annex B countries. However, in determining the split of reduction measures between abroad and at home, transaction cost and risk elements that might be associated with the operation of these instruments are not usually taken into account. This paper evaluates the importance of transaction costs and risk premia with respect to the flexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. It examines their effect on the up-take of these policy instruments and provides information on how to reduce these cost elements.


Transaction Cost Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol Credit Rating Emission Trading 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aidt, T.S. and J. Dutta (2001), Transitional Politics: Emerging Incentive-Based Instruments in Environmental Regulation, Nota di lavoro 78.2001, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, S. (1995), The Strategy of Joint Implementation in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, Geneva.Google Scholar
  3. Böhringer, C. and A. Löschel (2001), Market Power in International Emission Trading: The Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 01-58, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  4. Cantor, R. and F. Packer (1996), Determinants and Impact of Sovereign Credit Ratings, FRBNY Economic Policy Review (October), 37–53.Google Scholar
  5. Coase, R.H. (1937), The Nature of the Firm, Economica, New Series 4, 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coase, R.H. (1960), The Problem of Social Costs, Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dailami, M. and D. Leipziger (1999), Infrastructure Project Finance and Capital Flows: A New Perspective, Working Paper, Economic Development Institute, The World Bank, Washington D.C., available online at Scholar
  8. Dailami, M., I. Lipkovich, and J. Van Dyck (2001), INFRISK: A Computer Simulation Approach to Risk Management in Infrastructure Project Finance Transactions, Working Paper, World Bank Institute, available online at
  9. Damodaran (1999), Estimating Country Premiums, Dataset, available online at
  10. Damodaran (undated), Estimating Equity Risk Premiums, Working Paper, New York University, available online at
  11. Dudek, D.J. and J.B. Wiener (1996), Joint Implementation, Transaction Costs, and Climate Change, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  12. EcoSecurities (2000), Financing and Financing Mechanisms for Joint Implementation (JI) Projects in the Electricity Sector, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Gangadharan, L. (2000), Transaction Costs in Pollution Markets: An Empirical Study, Land Economics 76(4), 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hahn, R.W. and G.L. Hester (1989), Marketable Permits: Lessons for Theory and Practice, Ecology Law Quarterly 16, 361–406.Google Scholar
  15. Joskow, P.L., R. Schmalensee, and E.M. Bailey (1998), The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, American Economic Review 88(4), 669–685.Google Scholar
  16. Jotzo, F. and A. Michaelowa (2001), Estimating the CDM Market Under the Bonn Agreement, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 145, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  17. Kerr, S. and D. Maré (1997), Transaction Costs and Tradeable Permit Markets: The United States Lead Phasedown, Paper EAERE Conference Tilburg, The Netherlands, June 26-28th.Google Scholar
  18. KFA-Forschungszentrum Jülich (1994), IKARUS-Instrumente für Klimagas Reduktionsstrategien, Teilprojekt 4: Umwandlungssektor ström-und wärmeerzeugende Anlagen auf fossiler und nuklearer Grundlage, Teil 1 u. 2, Jülich.Google Scholar
  19. Klaassen, G. and A. Nentjes, (1997), Sulfur Trading under the 1990 CAAA in the US: An Assessment of the First Experiences, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 153(2), 384–410.Google Scholar
  20. Klepper, G. and S. Peterson (2002), Trading Hot Air: The Influence of Permit Allocation Rules, Market Power and the US Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, Working Paper, Kiel Institute of World Economics, available online at
  21. Montero, J.-P. (1997), Marketable Pollution Permits with Uncertainty and Transaction Costs, Resource and Energy Economics 20, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD (2001), Kyoto Mechanisms, Monitoring and Compliance from Kyoto to The Hague, available online at
  23. PCF (2002), Learning from the Implementation of the PrototypeCarbonFund. Presentation at a side event to the COP 6 Negotiations at The Hague, Netherlands, available online at Scholar
  24. PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2000), A Business View on Key Issues Relating to Kyoto Mechanisms, London.Google Scholar
  25. Solomon, B. (1995), Global CO Emissions Trading: Early Lessons from the US Acid Rain Program, Climatic Change 30, 75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stavins, R.N. (1995), Transaction Costs and Tradable Permit, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tietenberg, T., M. Grubb, A. Michaelowa, B. Swift, and Z.X. Zhang (1999), International Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading, UNCTAD, available online at
  28. UNFCCC (2002), Activities Implemented Jointly — List of Projects, available online at
  29. Woerdman, E. (2001) Emissions Trading and Transaction Costs: Analyzing the Flaws in the Discussion, Ecological Economics 38, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frauke Eckermann
    • 1
  • Marcus Stronzik
    • 1
  • Alistair Hunt
    • 2
  • Tim Taylor
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for European Economic ResearchMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Metroeconomica LimitedBathUK

Personalised recommendations