4.7 Article

Does trade liberalization lead to environmental burden shifting in the global economy?

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 98-112

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.006

关键词

Environmental footprint; International trade; Preferential trade agreements; Pollution-haven hypothesis

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [407340_172363/1]
  2. ETH Zurich
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [407340_172363] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Does trade liberalization lead to the outsourcing of pollution from industrialized countries to developing countries? According to the pollution-haven hypothesis, international trade is a key channel through which richer countries can geographically dissociate consumption from production of goods. We examine whether and how trade liberalization via preferential trade agreements (PTAs) facilitates the shifting of consumption-based environmental burdens from developed countries (via imports) to poorer countries (via exports). Based on panel data analysis of 183 countries from 1987 to 2013 we find partial evidence for trade-induced environmental burden shifting. While we observe an increase in footprint exports from low-income countries when these countries liberalize trade, this is not matched by an increase in footprint imports of high-income countries. Our results also show that environmental clauses in PTAs and participation in international environmental agreements do not influence the relationship between trade liberalization and ecological footprint movements. However, domestic institutions have a significant effect on the trade-induced distribution of environmental burdens. These findings suggest that PTAs as a policy tool for trade liberalization are, per se, unlikely to induce exploitation of low-income countries' natural capital by wealthier nations. However, they suggest that political incentives inherent to democratic institutions encourage environmental burden shifting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据