No abstract

No abstract

The bulk of environmental economics literature applies non-cooperative game theory to examine the stability of International Environmental Agreements. Recently, a new trend has emerged in the literature whereby scholars use modified economic approaches to better account for 'reality' as such. This article builds upon the work of Hugh Ward, Frank Grundig and Ethan Zorick who conducted a mixed-method analysis to create a model of international climate change negotiations which could explain why policy change has been minimal in this issue area. The purpose of this article is to further develop the mixed-method approach in order to gain a better understanding of international climate change negotiations. Using the progression of the 2011 Durban negotiation session as our raw data, we demonstrate the usefulness of conducting qualitative and quantitative analyses simultaneously to best represent reality. Content and discourse analyses are applied to the Durban negotiations to identify the properties of the underlying game. The results are applied to the future of the negotiations in order to identify trends which need to be addressed to reach more progressive outcomes in the future. The main results of the qualitative analyses of the Durban negotiations included that players had modest expectations at the outset of the negotiations, which influenced the issues they addressed. The quantitative analysis demonstrated that players achieved a high degree of success at Durban; all players achieved their desired outcomes on at least half of the issues they addressed. Finally, the mixed-method approach identified important trends from the negotiations, most importantly the cracks exposed within the BASIC bloc and the role of the 'middle ground' alliance. Keywords AbstractThe bulk of environmental economics literature applies non-cooperative game theory to examine the stability of International Environmental Agreements. Recently, a new trend has emerged in the literature whereby scholars use modified economic approaches to better account for 'reality' as such. This article builds upon the work of Hugh Ward, Frank Grundig and Ethan Zorick who conducted a mixed-method analysis to create a model of international climate change negotiations which could explain why policy change has been minimal in this issue area. The purpose of this article is to further develop the mixed-method approach in order to gain a better understanding of international climate change negotiations. Using the progression of the 2011 Durban negotiation session as our raw data, we demonstrate the usefulness of conducting qualitative and quantitative analyses simultaneously to best represent reality. Content and discourse analyses are applied to the Durban negotiations to identify the properties of the underlying game. The results are applied to the future of the negotiations in order to identify trends which need to be addressed to reach more progressive outcomes in the future. The main results of the qualitative analyses of the Durban negotiations ...

The purpose of this paper is to enhance our understanding of international climate change negotiations by providing insights into the structure and internal coherence of negotiation groups at COP 17 in Durban, with special reference to the relative importance of various negotiation issues. Discourse analysis is used to code the opening statements of participating countries in order to identify which negotiation issues are stressed. Statistical tools such as principal component analysis and cluster analysis are then used to identify the most important issues as well as to identify which negotiation groups emerge 'naturally' from the data. The coalitions uncovered in the analysis differ from existing negotiations groups and are more robust according to various measures. Existing coalitions are not homogenous (which has been demonstrated in the literature, e.g. Roberts, 2011; Vihma et al., 2011), nor are countries homogenous by region. This paper adds to our understanding by presenting a method of identifying groups and determining their internal stability. Our results demonstrate that the primary characteristic distinguishing coalitions was the degree that they emphasize the issues under negotiation.