10 thoughts on “Free-rider Problem and Environment”
free rider- those who consume more than their fair share of a public resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production
More free riders make the provision of collective action difficult. This is a type of collective good problem in IR
This would be 2.5/4. You may want to say more on why free rider problems can make collective action more difficult and why such problems are pertinent in environmental affairs.
Free riders can make collective action more difficult. For example, consumers can take advantage of public goods without contributing sufficiently to their creation, which is caused by private organizations not reaping the benefits of a public good. An example of the free rider problem from an environmental aspect is that if the world is financially contributing to an environmental issue, like the ozone depletion, then the global south may tend to free ride because the global north has more money to contribute
Close but still not there. There is a simpler logic here: once the good is provided, I cannot be excluded from enjoying it.
Once a good is provided by other nations, free-rider nations will either not contribute to producing that good or will contribute less than other nations. This makes collective action more difficult, as states may think if another state is handling the problem, they don't have to work toward it, and will still benefit from the efforts of the working states. This makes giving free-riding nations a reason to participate in collective action difficult, as they can enjoy the benefits while not working toward it. This is particular in global warming and the environment. If a group of states agree to cut their carbon emissions, other states may not have any incentive to join in the agreement. They will not have not damage their economy with carbon-control policies, while still enjoying the benefits (a decrease in carbon-emissions to help global warming) produced by those nations who are working toward it.
^ Yes. Could be stated simpler but the logic is there.
A free rider is someone who will partake in the benefits of action against a problem but will not take part in the action itself. In the case of the environment, an example of this might be a state that does not want to cut down on their use of nuclear power or to combat the ozone depletion. Instead they will rely on other states' action to combat the issues and will benefit from the results (a healthier planet, cleaner air, etc.) though they did nothing to help obtain them. The problem with this is that the states that would be willing to step up to the plate then see the free-riders and think "Why should I be the only one to work for the environment? I'm losing resources and money but they get the same benefit without losing anything. Maybe I'll just drop out of the fight and let someone else work for the benefits too€¦" This leads to no one doing anything and the environment simply does not get any help. -Stephanie Laird
^ This one is also very good; both Kevin’s and Stephanie’s answers would be 4/4.
A free rider is someone who benefits from the actions of a group but does not participate in it. In the case of environmental issues, we can see many countries limiting their carbon emissions in order to protect the ozone layer. But other countries, such as China, do not adopt these policies and they still get benefited from global lower emissions and ozone layer protection.
Free rider is someone who will partake in the benefits of action against a problem but will not take part in the action itself. In the case of the environment, an example of this would be states that do not want to limit themselves by partaking in combating ozone depletion. Instead, they will rely on other states' actions to combat the issue and will benefit from the results (healthier planet, cleaner air) though they did nothing to help obtain them. The existence of free riders leads to a "Why should I be the only one do any work?" mentality among nations. This leads to no one doing anything and the environment receives no help.
free rider- those who consume more than their fair share of a public resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production
More free riders make the provision of collective action difficult. This is a type of collective good problem in IR
This would be 2.5/4. You may want to say more on why free rider problems can make collective action more difficult and why such problems are pertinent in environmental affairs.
Free riders can make collective action more difficult. For example, consumers can take advantage of public goods without contributing sufficiently to their creation, which is caused by private organizations not reaping the benefits of a public good. An example of the free rider problem from an environmental aspect is that if the world is financially contributing to an environmental issue, like the ozone depletion, then the global south may tend to free ride because the global north has more money to contribute
Close but still not there. There is a simpler logic here: once the good is provided, I cannot be excluded from enjoying it.
Once a good is provided by other nations, free-rider nations will either not contribute to producing that good or will contribute less than other nations. This makes collective action more difficult, as states may think if another state is handling the problem, they don't have to work toward it, and will still benefit from the efforts of the working states. This makes giving free-riding nations a reason to participate in collective action difficult, as they can enjoy the benefits while not working toward it. This is particular in global warming and the environment. If a group of states agree to cut their carbon emissions, other states may not have any incentive to join in the agreement. They will not have not damage their economy with carbon-control policies, while still enjoying the benefits (a decrease in carbon-emissions to help global warming) produced by those nations who are working toward it.
^ Yes. Could be stated simpler but the logic is there.
A free rider is someone who will partake in the benefits of action against a problem but will not take part in the action itself. In the case of the environment, an example of this might be a state that does not want to cut down on their use of nuclear power or to combat the ozone depletion. Instead they will rely on other states' action to combat the issues and will benefit from the results (a healthier planet, cleaner air, etc.) though they did nothing to help obtain them. The problem with this is that the states that would be willing to step up to the plate then see the free-riders and think "Why should I be the only one to work for the environment? I'm losing resources and money but they get the same benefit without losing anything. Maybe I'll just drop out of the fight and let someone else work for the benefits too€¦" This leads to no one doing anything and the environment simply does not get any help. -Stephanie Laird
^ This one is also very good; both Kevin’s and Stephanie’s answers would be 4/4.
A free rider is someone who benefits from the actions of a group but does not participate in it. In the case of environmental issues, we can see many countries limiting their carbon emissions in order to protect the ozone layer. But other countries, such as China, do not adopt these policies and they still get benefited from global lower emissions and ozone layer protection.
Free rider is someone who will partake in the benefits of action against a problem but will not take part in the action itself. In the case of the environment, an example of this would be states that do not want to limit themselves by partaking in combating ozone depletion. Instead, they will rely on other states' actions to combat the issue and will benefit from the results (healthier planet, cleaner air) though they did nothing to help obtain them. The existence of free riders leads to a "Why should I be the only one do any work?" mentality among nations. This leads to no one doing anything and the environment receives no help.