Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:29:15.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution neutral abatement policy in a model of trade and environment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2009

MONICA DAS  and
SANDWIP K. DAS
MONICA DAS
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Skidmore College, 815 N Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA. Tel: 518-5805096. Fax: 518-5805099. Email: mdas@skidmore.edu
SANDWIP K. DAS
Affiliation:
Visiting Professor, University of California, Riverside, USA. Email: skudas@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) states that with weak environmental policies a country can create comparative advantage in the polluting sector. This paper formulates a 3-good-3-factor model where the abatement input is a pure intermediate good. In our model, the PHH as well as the neoclassical trade theorems are valid only when environmental policies are distribution neutral. Inspired by the US Clean Air Act, we develop and estimate a dynamic panel model. We find that US environmental policies are consistent with distribution neutrality. Our results indicate that lowering abatement standards in all industries is the only way the US can become a pollution haven. In the context of our model, the PHH has damaging implications for the world environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , August 2009 , pp. 457 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alonso-Borrego, C. and Arellano, M. (1999), ‘Symmetrically normalized instrumental variable estimation using panel data’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 17: 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T.W. and Hsiao, C. (1982), ‘Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data’, Journal of Econometrics 18: 47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991), ‘Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations’, The Review of Economic Studies 58: 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, B. and Bond, S. (1998), ‘Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models’, Journal of Econometrics 87: 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casas, F.R. (1972), ‘Pure intermediate products, factor intensities and technical progress in the theory of international trade’, Southern Economic Journal 39: 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chua, S. (2003), ‘Does tighter environmental policy lead to a comparative advantage in less polluting goods?’, Oxford Economic Papers 55: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, B.R. (2005), ‘Differentiated emission taxes and the market for abatement services’, Paper prepared for Trade and Environment conference, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (1994), ‘North–south trade and the environment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 755–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (1995), ‘Trade and environment, a partial synthesis’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (1997), ‘A simple model of trade, capital mobility and the environment’, NBER Working Paper No. 5898, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (2004), ‘Trade, growth and the environment’, Journal of Economic Literature 42: 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, M. and Das, S.K. (2007), ‘Can stricter environmental regulations increase export of the polluting good?’, The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy 7 (Topics): Article 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullerton, D. and Heutel, G. (2007), ‘The general equilibrium incidence of environmental mandates’, NBER Working Paper No. 13645, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. (1994), ‘Testing for a unit root in time series with pretest data-based model selection’, Journal of Business and Economics Statistics 12: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L.P. (1982), ‘Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators’, Econometrica 50: 1029–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, A., Lin, C., and Chu, C.J. (2002), ‘Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties’, Journal of Econometrics 108: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, A. and Taylor, M.S. (2008), ‘Unmasking the pollution haven effect’, International Economic Review, 49: 223–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddle, B. (2001), ‘Free trade and the environment–development system’, Ecological Economics 39: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markandya, A. (2005), ‘International trade and sustainable development’, Paper prepared for International Conference on Environment and Development: Developing Countries Perspective, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
McAusland, C. (2003), ‘Trade, politics and the environment: Tailpipe vs Smokestack’, Working Paper 8–03, Economics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1981), ‘Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects’, Econometrica 49: 1417–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauscher, M. (1997), International Trade, Factor Movements, and the Environment, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargan, J.D. (1958), ‘The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables’, Econometrica 26: 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobey, J.A. (1990), ‘The effects of domestic environmental policies on patterns of world trade: an empirical test’, KYKLOS 43: 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Bureau of the Census (1977–1986), Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Bureau of the Census (1977–1986), Annual Survey of Manufactures: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Clean Air Act (amended 1990), ‘National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants’, Title 1, Part A, Section 112, Environmental Protection Agency, US.Google Scholar
Windmeijer, F. (2005), ‘A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators’, Journal of Econometrics 126: 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar