Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 727–759 | Cite as

Unequal Vulnerability to Climate Change and the Transmission of Adverse Effects Through International Trade

  • Karine Constant
  • Marion DavinEmail author


In this paper, we consider the unequal distribution of climate change damages in the world and we examine how the underlying costs can spread from a vulnerable to a non-vulnerable country through international trade. To focus on such indirect effects, we treat this topic in a North–South trade overlapping generations model in which the South is vulnerable to the damages entailed by global pollution while the North is not. We show that the impacts of climate change in the South can be sources of welfare loss for northern consumers in both the long and the short run. In the long run, an increase in the South’s vulnerability can reduce the welfare in the North economy even in the case in which it improves the terms of trade of the North. In the short run, the South’s vulnerability can also represent a source of intergenerational inequity in the North. Therefore, we emphasize the strong economic incentives for non-vulnerable—and a fortiori less vulnerable—economies to reduce the climate change damages on more vulnerable countries.


International trade Climate change Heterogeneous damages Overlapping generations 

JEL Classification

F18 F43 O41 Q56 



We would like to thank the co-editor Robert Elliott, and the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. We are also grateful to the participants at the conferences LAGV 2017, EAERE 2017, FAERE 2017, SAET 2018 and at the workshops on location choices and environmental economics (2017, Pau), on growth, environment and population (2017, Nanterre) and on environmental regulation, trade and innovation (2018, Créteil). Supports from ANR GREEN-econ (ANR-16-CE03-0005) are gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Acemoglu D, Guerrieri V (2008) Capital deepening and nonbalanced economic growth. J Polit Econ 116(3):467–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen DC (2017) Do credit constraints favor dirty production? Theory and plant-level evidence. J Environ Econ Manag 84:189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayong Le Kama A, Pommeret A (2017) Supplementing domestic mitigation and adaptation with emissions reduction abroad to face climate change. Environ Resour Econ 68(4):875–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broner F, Bustos P, Carvalho VM (2012) Sources of comparative advantage in polluting industries. National Bureau of Economic Research (No. w18337)Google Scholar
  5. Burke M, Hsiang SM, Miguel E (2015) Global non-linear effect of temperature on global on economic production. Nature 527:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiroleu-Assouline M, Fodha M (2005) Double dividend with involuntary unemployment: efficiency and intergenerational equity. Environ Resour Econ 31(4):389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole MA, Elliott RJR (2005) FDI and the capital intensity of “Dirty” sectors: a missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Rev Dev Econ 9(4):530–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole MA, Elliott RJR, Wu S (2008) Industrial activity and the environment in China: an industry-level analysis. China Econ Rev 19:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constant K, Davin M (2019) Environmental policy and growth when environmental awareness is endogenous. Macroecon Dyn 23(3):1102–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooley T (1995) Economic growth and business cycles. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth and the environment. J Econ Lit 42:7–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costinot A, Donaldson D, Smith C (2016) Evolving comparative advantage and the impact of climate change in agricultural markets: evidence from 1.7 million fields around the world. J Polit Econ 124(1):205–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de La Croix D, Michel P (2002) A theory of economic growth: dynamics and policy in overlapping generations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dell M, Jones BF, Olken BA (2012) Temperature shocks and economic growth: evidence from the last half century. Am Econ J Macroecon 4(3):66–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dietz S, Stern N (2015) Endogenous growth, convexity of damage and climate risk: how Nordhaus’ framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions. Econ J 125:574–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fadinger H, Fleiss P (2011) Trade and sectoral productivity. Econ J 121:958–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golosov M, Hassler J, Krusell P, Tsyvinski A (2014) Optimal taxes on fossil fuel in general equilibrium. Econometrica 82(1):41–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howarth RB, Norgaard R (1992) Environmental valuation under sustainable development. Am Econ Rev 82(2):473–477Google Scholar
  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. John A, Pecchenino R (1994) An overlapping generations model of growth and the environment. Econ J 104:1393–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones BF, Olken BA (2010) Climate shocks and exports. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 100:454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karp L, Rezai A (2014) The political economy of environmental policy with overlapping generations. Int Econ Rev 55(3):711–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerr WR (2018) Heterogeneous technology diffusion and Ricardian trade patterns. World Bank Econ Rev 32(1):163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58(3):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mendelsohn R, Dinar A, Williams L (2006) The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Environ Dev Econ 11(2):159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ollivier H (2016) North–South trade and heterogeneous damages from local and global pollution. Environ Resour Econ 65(2):337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oniki H, Uzawa H (1965) Patterns of trade and investment in a dynamic model of international trade. Rev Econ Stud 32(1):15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schenker O (2013) Exchanging goods and damages: the role of trade on the distribution of climate change costs. Environ Resour Econ 54:261–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schenker O, Stephan G (2014) Give and take: how the funding of adaptation to climate change can improve the donor’s terms-of-trade. Ecol Econ 106:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schumacher I, Zou B (2008) Pollution perception: a challenge for intergenerational equity. J Environ Econ Manag 55(3):296–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seegmuller T, Verchère A (2004) Pollution as a source of endogenous fluctuations and periodic welfare inequality in OLG economies. Econ Lett 84:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern N (2006) The Stern review report: the economics of climate change. HMTreasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Varvarigos D (2011) Non-monotonic welfare dynamics in a growing economy. J Macroecon 33(2):303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WTO and UNEP (2009) Trade and climate change—a report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization. LausanneGoogle Scholar
  35. Yenokyan K, Seater JJ, Arabshahi M (2014) Economic growth with trade in factors of production. Int Econ Rev 55(1):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ERUDITE, UPECUniversité Paris EstCréteilFrance
  2. 2.CEE-M, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations