Investigation of the Relations Between Foreign Trade and Characteristics of Environmental Quality: Existing Approaches and Approbation of Gravity Modeling
https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2021-28-6-69-78
Abstract
The purpose of this study is for the author to summarize approaches and methods for assessing availability, identifying forms and types of relations between characteristics of environmental quality and international trade, and also to test the gravity theory of trade as such a method (on the example of the Republic of Belarus).
The author has investigated modern economic works devoted to the study of the influence of trade liberalization on environmental pollution, the pollution haven hypothesis, the environmental Kuznets curve, the Porter hypothesis, etc., as well as the studies aimed at confirming or refuting these hypotheses, has systematized modern approaches to assessing the relations between trade and environmental indicators.
Based on the panel data for the period from 1995 to 2019, the author has constructed the gravity models of trade (separately for export and import) of the Republic of Belarus with the EAEU partner countries and neighboring countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Ukraine), taking into account the environmental impact (the carbon dioxide emissions as the proxy variable of pollution). The simulation results have confirmed the theoretical provisions of the gravity theory. In addition, a significant effect of an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of countries – trade partners of the Republic of Belarus on its imports has been revealed.
About the Author
A. V. Shved
Belarus State Economic University
Belarus
Belarus
Shved – Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Doctoral Student, Department of Statistics
26, Partizanski Av., Minsk, 220070
References
1. Dinda S. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics. 2004;49(4):431–455.
2. Frankel J., Rose A. Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting out the Causality. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2005;(85):85–91.
3. Mihalischev S., Raskina Y. Environmental Kuznets Curve: The Case of Russia. European University at St. Petersburg, Department of Economics. Working Paper Ec-03/15 [Preprint]. 34 p. (In Russ.)
4. Aliyu M.A. Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment: Pollution Haven Hypothesis Revisited. In: Proc. of the Eight Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Lübeck, Germany, June 9–11, 2005.
5. Yoon H., Heshmati A. Do Environmental Regulations Effect FDI Decisions? The Pollution Haven Hypothesis Revisited. GLO Discussion Paper No. 86. Maastricht: Global Labor Organization (GLO); 2017.
6. Merican Y. et al. Foreign Direct Investment and the Pollution in Five ASEAN Nations. International Journal of Economics and Management. 2007;1(2):245–261.
7. Acikgoz B., Yilmazer M. Kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve kamu politikaları. Ege Akademik Bakış (Ege Academic Review). 2009;9(4):1441–1462.
8. Prakash A., Potoski M. Racing to the Bottom? Trade, Environmental Governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science. 2006;50(2):350–364.
9. Guo G. Race to the Top or to the Bottom: Globalization and Education Spending in China. In: Proc. of the 16th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, 8–10 June 2013, Shanghai, China.
10. Porter M.E., van der Linde C. Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1995;9(4):97–118.
11. Wagner M. The Porter Hypothesis Revisited. A Literature Review of Theoretical Model and Empirical Test. Lüneburg: Centre for Sustainability Management; 2003.
12. André F.J. Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis. MPRA Paper No. 62237. University Library of Munich, Germany: 2015.
13. Petroni G., Bilgiardi B., Galati F. Rethinking the Porter Hypothesis: The Underappreciated Importance of Value Appropriation and Pollution Intensity. Review of Policy Research. 2019;36(1):121–140.
14. Copeland B.R., Taylor M.S. Trade and Transboundary Pollution. The American Economic Review. 1995;85(4):716–737.
15. Cole M., Elliott R. Determining the Trade-environment Composition Effect: The Role of Capital, Labour and Environmental Regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2003;46:363–383.
16. Tobey J.A. The Effects of Domestic Environmental Policies on Patterns of World Trade: An Empirical Test. Kyklos. 1990;43(2):191–209.
17. Antweiler W., Copeland B., Taylor M.S. Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? American Economic Review. 2001;91(4):877–908.
18. Frankel J., Rose A. Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2005;87(1):85–91.
19. Batrakova S., Davies R. Is there an Environmental Benefit to Being an Exporter? Evidence from Firm-Level Data. Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv). 2012;148(3):449–474.
20. Cui J., Lapan H., Moschini G. Are Exporters More Environmentally Friendly than Non-Exporters? Theory and Evidence. Staff General Research Papers Archive 35549. Iowa State University, Department of Economics; 2012.
21. Gutierrez E., Teshima K. Import Competition and Environmental Performance: Evidence from Mexican Plant-level and Satellite Imagery Data. Working Papers 1101. Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM: 2011.
22. Holladay J.H. Exporters and the Environment. Working Papers 2015-03. University of Tennessee, Department of Economics; 2015. 33 p.
23. Shkiperova G.T. Environmental Kuznets Curve as a Tool for the Study of Regional Development. Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice. 2013;19(322):8–16. (In Russ.)
24. Druzhinin P.V., Shkiperova G.T. Ecological and Economic Models and Predictions in the Regional Management System. Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2012;23(1):88–97. (In Russ.)
25. Druzhinin P.V., Shkiperova G.T., Potasheva O.V. Environmental Kuznets curve: the case of Russia and Finland. Economics: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. 2018;8(11А):83–97. (In Russ.)
26. Shkiperova G.T. Analysis and Modeling of the Relationship Between Economic Growth and Environmental Quality (on the Example of the Republic of Karelia). In: Actual Problems, Directions and Mechanisms of Development of the Productive Forces of the North. Syktyvkar: 2014. P. 9–16. (In Russ.)
27. Yashalova N.N. The Use of Correlation Analysis in Ecological and Economic Research. Nature Management Economics. 2015;(6):95–105. (In Russ.)
28. Druzhinin P.V. (ed.) Modeling the Impact of Economic Development on the Environment. Petrozavodsk: Karelian Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2009. 96 p. (In Russ.)
29. Sardor A. Trade and Environment: Do Spatial Effects Matter? MPRA Paper No. 73113, 2016.
Review
For citations:
Shved A.V. Investigation of the Relations Between Foreign Trade and Characteristics of Environmental Quality: Existing Approaches and Approbation of Gravity Modeling. Voprosy statistiki. 2021;28(6):69-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2021-28-6-69-78
Views:
737
Email this article 