Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 1137–1171 | Cite as

Pollution havens: international empirical evidence using a shadow price measure of climate policy stringency

  • Erik Hille
Article
  • 229 Downloads

Abstract

Given the ambiguous empirical results of previous research, this paper tests whether support for a climate policy-induced pollution haven effect and the pollution haven hypothesis can be found. Unlike the majority of previous studies, the analysis is based on international panel data and includes several methodological novelties: By arguing that trade flows of dirty goods to less dirty sectors may also be influenced by changes in policy stringency, trade information on primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors are included. In order to clearly differentiate between dirty sectors and sectors with high pollution abatement costs, separate measures for pollution intensity and policy stringency are implemented. For the former, two intensities, namely the sectors’ carbon dioxide emission intensity and the emission relevant energy intensity, are used to identify dirty sectors. For the latter, an internationally comparable, sector-specific measure of climate policy stringency is derived by applying a shadow price approach. Potential endogeneity between climate policy stringency, trade openness and the trade balance is controlled for by employing a dynamic panel generalized method of moments estimator. The results provide evidence for a pollution haven effect that is also present for non-dirty sectors, i.e., a sector’s net imports rise in general if the sector faces an increase in climate policy stringency. Moreover, a stronger pollution haven effect regarding carbon dioxide intensive and emission relevant energy-intensive sectors is revealed. However, no support for the stronger pollution haven hypothesis can be found.

Keywords

International trade Pollution havens Carbon leakage Global pollution Environmental policy stringency Shadow prices 

JEL Classification

D22 F14 Q54 Q58 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) in the framework of the project “Climate Policy and the Growth Pattern of Nations” is gratefully acknowledged. Moreover, the author would like to thank two anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Aldy JE, Pizer WA (2015) The competitiveness impacts of climate change mitigation policies. J Assoc Env Res Econ 2(4):565–595Google Scholar
  2. Althammer W, Hille E (2016) Measuring climate policy stringency: a shadow price approach. Int Tax Public Finan 23(4):607–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Althammer W, Mutz C (2010) Pollution havens: empirical evidence for Germany. Paper presented at the 4th World congress of environmental and resource economists, Montreal, 28 June–2 July 2010. http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/WCERE/2010/1408/PollutionHavensEmpiricalEvidenceGermany.pdf
  4. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econom 68(1):29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arouri MEH, Caporale GM, Rault C, Sova R, Sova A (2012) Environmental regulation and competitiveness: evidence from Romania. Ecol Econ 81(C):130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2007) Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? J Int Econ 71(1):72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH, Feng M (2014) Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade. J Int Econ 93(2):339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bao Q, Chen Y, Song L (2011) Foreign direct investment and environmental pollution in China: a simultaneous equations estimation. Environ Dev Econ 16(1):71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker R, Henderson V (2000) Effects of air quality regulations on polluting industries. J Polit Econ 108(2):379–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1):115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Branger F, Quirion P, Chevallier J (2017) Carbon leakage and competitiveness of cement and steel industries under the EU ETS: much ado about nothing. Energy J 37(3):109–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunel C (2016) Pollution offshoring and emission reductions in EU and US manufacturing. Environ Resour Econ. Advance online publication http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-016-0035-1
  14. Brunel C, Levinson A (2016) Measuring the stringency of environmental regulations. Rev Env Econ Policy 10(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunnermeier SB, Levinson A (2004) Examining the evidence on environmental regulations and industry location. J Env Dev 13(1):6–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caselli F (2005) Accounting for cross-country income differences. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN (eds) Handbook of economic growth. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Chung S (2014) Environmental regulation and foreign direct investment: evidence from South Korea. J Dev Econ 108(2014):222–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole MA, Elliot RJR (2003) Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3):363–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Copeland BR (2011) Trade and the environment. In: Bernhofen D, Falvey R, Greenaway D, Kreickemeier U (eds) Palgrave handbook of international trade. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  20. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth, and the environment. J Econ Lit 42(1):7–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dechezlepretre A, Sato, M (2014) The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Policy Brief November 2014Google Scholar
  22. Diekmann J, Kemfert C, Neuhoff K (2012) The proposed adjustment of Germany’s renewable energy law: a critical assessment. DIW Econ Bull 6(1):3–9Google Scholar
  23. Dietzenbacher E, Mukhopadhyay K (2007) An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: towards a green Leontief paradox? Environ Resour Econ 36(4):427–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ederington J, Minier J (2003) Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis. Can J Econ 36(1):137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ederington J, Levinson A, Minier J (2004) Trade liberalization and pollution havens. Adv Econ Anal Policy 4(2):Article 6Google Scholar
  26. Ederington J, Levinson A, Minier J (2005) Footloose and pollution-free. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. European Commission (2012) Commission decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. Amended by Commission Decision 2011/745/EU of 11 November 2011 and Commission Decision 2012/498/EU of 17 August 2012Google Scholar
  28. Frankel JA (2009) Addressing the leakage/competitiveness issue in climate change policy proposals. In: Sorkin I, Brainard L (eds) Climate change, trade, and competitiveness: is a collision inevitable?. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenstone M (2002) The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activity: evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act amendments and the census of manufactures. J Polit Econ 110(6):1175–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1993) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. In: Garber PM (ed) The Mexico-U.S. free trade agreement. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris MN, Kónya L, Mátyás L (2002) Modelling the impact of environmental regulations on bilateral trade flows: OECD, 1990–1996. World Econ 25(3):387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. He J (2006) Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: the case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecol Econ 60(1):228–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holtz-Eakin D, Newey W, Rosen HS (1988) Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica 56(6):1371–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. International Energy Agency (2013) Energy prices and taxes: end-use prices. http://wds.iea.org/WDS/Common/Login/login.aspx. Cited 04 Feb 2013
  35. Jaffe AB, Peterson SR, Portney PR, Stavins RN (1995) Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? J Econ Lit 33(1):132–163Google Scholar
  36. Kalt JP (1988) The impact of domestic environmental regulatory policies on U.S. international competitiveness. In: Spence AM, Hazard HA (eds) International competitiveness. Ballinger, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller W, Levinson A (2002) Pollution abatement costs and foreign direct investment inflows to U.S. states. Rev Econ Stat 84(4):691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee J-W, Swagel P (1997) Trade barriers and trade flows across countries and industries. Rev Econ Stat 79(3):372–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinson A (1996) Environmental regulations and manufacturers’ location choices: evidence from the census of manufactures. J Public Econ 62(1–2):5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levinson A (2009) Technology, international trade, and pollution from U.S. manufacturing. Am Econ Rev 99(5):2177–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levinson A, Taylor MS (2008) Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int Econ Rev 49(1):223–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58(3):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Michel B (2013) Is offshoring driven by air emissions? Testing the pollution haven effect for imports of intermediates. Federal Planning Bureau Working Paper 12-13, Oct 2013Google Scholar
  44. Millimet DL, Roy J (2016) Empirical tests of the pollution haven hypothesis when environmental regulation is endogenous. J Appl Econom 31(4):652–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrison CJ (1988) Quasi-fixed inputs in U.S. and Japanese manufacturing: a generalized Leontief restricted cost function approach. Rev Econ Stat 70(2):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrison Paul CJ, MacDonald JM (2003) Tracing the effects of agricultural commodity prices on food processing costs. Am J Agr Econ 85(3):633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mulatu A, Florax RJGM, Withagen C (2004) Environmental regulation and international trade: empirical results for Germany, The Netherlands and the US, 1977–1992. Contrib Econ Anal Policy 3(2):Article 5Google Scholar
  48. Mulatu A, Gerlagh R, Rigby D, Wossink A (2010) Environmental regulation and industry location in Europe. Environ Resour Econ 45(4):459–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012a) 4. PPPs and exchange rates dataset. http://stats.oecd.org/. Cited 24 Sept 2012
  50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012b) Monthly monetary and financial statistics (MEI) dataset. http://stats.oecd.org/. Cited 24 Sept 2012
  51. Penn World Tables (2011) Extended Penn World Tables Database Version 4.0. Released Aug 2011Google Scholar
  52. Penn World Tables (2012) Penn World Table Version 7.1. Released Nov 2012Google Scholar
  53. Pritchett L (1996) Measuring outward orientation in LDCs: can it be done. J Dev Econ 49(2):307–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rose AK (2004) Do WTO members have more liberal trade policy? J Int Econ 63(2):209–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Santos-Paulino A, Thirwall AP (2004) The impact of trade liberalization on exports, imports, and the balance of payments of developing countries. Econ J 114(492):F50–F72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sato M, Dechezlepretre A (2015) Asymmetric industrial energy prices and international trade. Energ Econ 52(S1):S130–S141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tobey AJ (1990) The effects of domestic environmental policies on patterns of world trade: an empirical test. Kyklos 43(2):191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trefler D (1993) Trade liberalization and the theory of endogenous protection: an econometric study of U.S. import policy. J Polit Econ 101(1):138–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Beers C, van den Bergh JCJM (2003) Environmental regulation impacts on international trade: aggregate and sectoral analyses with a bilateral trade flow model. Int J Global Environ Issues 3(1):14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Soest DP, List JA, Jeppesen T (2006) Shadow prices, environmental stringency, and international competitiveness. Eur Econ Rev 50(5):1151–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econom 126(1):25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. World Input-Output Database (2012a) WIOD environmental accounts. Released March 2012Google Scholar
  63. World Input–Output Database (2012b) WIOD National Input–Output tables. Released April 2012Google Scholar
  64. World Input–Output Database (2012c) WIOD Socio-Economic Accounts. Released Feb 2012Google Scholar
  65. Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests of aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57(298):348–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HHL Leipzig Graduate School of ManagementLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations