Predicting Paris: Multi-method approaches to forecast the outcomes of global 
climate negotiations

Sprinz, Detlef F.; Bueno de Mesquita, B.; Kallbekken, S.; Stokman, F.; Saelen, H.; Thomson, R.

doi:10.17645/pag.v4i3.654

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Predicting Paris: Multi-method approaches to forecast the outcomes of global climate negotiations

Authors

/persons/resource/dsprinz

Sprinz, Detlef F.
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Bueno de Mesquita, B.
External Organizations;

Kallbekken, S.
External Organizations;

Stokman, F.
External Organizations;

Saelen, H.
External Organizations;

Thomson, R.
External Organizations;

External Ressource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (public)

7052oa.pdf
(Publisher version), 724KB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Sprinz, D. F., Bueno de Mesquita, B., Kallbekken, S., Stokman, F., Saelen, H., Thomson, R. (2016): Predicting Paris: Multi-method approaches to forecast the outcomes of global climate negotiations. - Politics and Governance, 4, 3, 172-187.
https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v4i3.654

Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_20648

Abstract

We examine the negotiations held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change in Paris, December 2015. Prior to these negotiations, there was considerable uncertainty about whether an agreement would be reached, particularly given that the world’s leaders failed to do so in the 2009 negotiations held in Copenhagen. Amid this uncertainty, we applied three different methods to predict the outcomes: an expert survey and two negotiation simulation models, namely the Exchange Model and the Predictioneer’s Game. After the event, these predictions were assessed against the coded texts that were agreed in Paris. The evidence suggests that combining experts’ predictions to reach a collective expert prediction makes for significantly more accurate predictions than individual experts’ predictions. The differences in the performance between the two different negotiation simulation models were not statistically significant.