Advertisement

Foreign Direct Investments and Environmental Policies: A Meta-Analysis

  • Santosh Kumar SahuEmail author
  • Unmesh Patnaik
Chapter
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

This study carries a meta-analysis of papers related to foreign direct investment (FDI) and environmental policy. The results firstly suggest that the use of government expenditure on environmental-related measures gives the highest probability of finding evidence for the pollution haven hypothesis (PHH). Secondly, it emerges that policies related to environmental suitability and FDI should be based on a top-down approach at country level instead of bottom-up strategies. Finally, we find that research papers that used new plant establishment as a proxy of FDI are more likely to support PHH as compared to those used the stock definition. The results are encouraging enough to be referred to in the context of designing suitable climate negotiation policies where increasing externalities are generated as pollutions from FDI. From the systemic quantitative review using meta-analysis, we propose a carbon tax at both regional and local scale, which will increase global welfare and address concerns related to sustainability.

Keywords

FDI PHH Environment Meta-analysis 

JEL Codes

Q56 B23 F35 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This is a modified and updated version of our earlier paper presented in the seminar on “FDI: Issues and Policies” during 24 February 2018 hosted by the Centre for Policy Studies, IIT, Bombay. We would like to thank Forum for Global Knowledge Sharing (Knowledge Forum) for accepting our paper for the seminar and participants for constructive comments and suggestions during the presentation. We would like to thank Prof. K. L. Krishna, Prof. N. S. Siddharthan and Prof. K. Narayanan for their specific comments and suggestions that helped us in modifying the paper in its current form. Usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Blackman, A., & Wu, X. (1998). Foreign direct investment in China’s power sector: Trends, benefits and barriers. Discussion Paper 98-50. Washington D.C. Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, J. H., & Smith, B. D. (1992). Intermediation and equilibrium allocation of investment capital: Implication for economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 30, 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brons, M., Nijkamp, P., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2005). A meta-analysis of the price elasticity of gasoline demand: A SUR approach. Energy Economics, 30, 2105–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole, M. A., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2009). Institutionalized pollution havens. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1239–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Copeland, B. R., & Taylor M. S. (1994, August). North-South trade and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 755–787.Google Scholar
  6. Fredriksson, P. G., List, J. A., & Millimet, D. A. (2003). Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: Theory and evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 87(2), 1407–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedman, J., Gerlowski, D. A., & Silberman, J. (1992). What attracts foreign multinational cooperations? Evidence from branch plant location in the United States. Journal of Regional Science, 32, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. List, J. A. (2001). US county-level determinants of inbound FDI: Evidence from a two-step modified count data model. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19(6), 953–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mihci, H., Cagatay, S., & Koska, O. (2005). The impact of environmental stringency on the foreign direct investments of the OECD countries. International Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(4), 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nelson, J. P., & Kennedy, P. E. (2009). The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: An assessment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42(3), 345–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Omri, A., & Kahouli, B. (2014). The nexus between foreign investment, domestic capital and economic growth: Empirical evidence from the MENA region. Research in Economics, 68, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Palmer, K., Oates, W. E., & Portney, P. R. (1995). Tightening environmental standards: The benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm. Journal of Economic Perspective, 9(4), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patnaik, U., Sahu, S. K. (2017). The trade-offs between GHGs emissions, income inequality and productivity. Research Papers, Forum for Global Knowledge Sharing.Google Scholar
  16. Porter, M. (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific American, 264(4), 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Romer, P. (1993). Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32, 543–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2000). Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: An investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32(1), 131–149.Google Scholar
  19. Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32, 1419–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Houtven, G., Powers, J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2007). Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis? Resource and Energy Economics, 29, 206–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wagner, U. J., & Timmins, C. (2009). Agglomeration effects in foreign direct investment and the pollution haven hypothesis. Environmental & Resource Economics, 43(2), 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia
  2. 2.School of Management and Labour StudiesCentre for Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social SciencesMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations