1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Economics
  4. Volume 9, 2017
  5. Article

Annual Review of Economics

Volume 9, 2017

Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results

Abstract

We review recent research linking international trade to the environment, with a focus on new results and methods. The review is given structure by a novel decomposition linking changes in emissions to changes in productive activity at the plant, firm, industry, and national levels. Although some new results have emerged from the application of a Melitz-style approach to trade and the environment, the full potential of this approach has not yet been realized. We discuss existing empirical and theoretical work, introduce three new hypotheses, and suggest paths for future researchers to follow.

Keyword(s): environment, globalization, heterogeneous firms, pollution, trade
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756
2017-08-02
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/9/1/annurev-economics-063016-103756.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2012. Kyoto and the carbon footprint of nations. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 63:336–54 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2013. Estimating the effects of Kyoto on bilateral trade flows using matching econometrics. World Econ. 36:303–30 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. 2015. Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97:104–15 [Google Scholar]
  4. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS. 2001. Is free trade good for the environment?. Am. Econ. Rev. 91:877–908 [Google Scholar]
  5. Autor DH, Dorn D, Hanson GH. 2013. The China syndrome: local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. Am. Econ. Rev. 6:2121–68 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrows G, Ollivier H. 2016. Emission intensity and firm dynamics: reallocation, product mix and technology in India Work. Pap. 245, Grantham Res. Inst. Clim Change Environ., London Sch. Econ. Polit Sci., London:
  7. Batrakova S, Davies RB. 2012. Is there an environmental benefit to being an exporter? Evidence from firm level data. Rev. World Econ. 148:449–74 [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker R, Henderson V. 2000. Effects of air quality regulations on polluting industries. J. Polit. Econ. 108:379–421 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bombardini M, Li B. 2016. Trade, pollution and mortality in China NBER Work. Pap. 22804
  10. Brander JA, Taylor MS. 1998. Open access renewable resources: trade and trade policy in a two-country model. J. Int. Econ. 44:181–209 [Google Scholar]
  11. Broner F, Bustos P, Carvalho V. 2015. Sources of comparative advantage in polluting industries Unpublished manuscript, Cent Recer. Econ. Int Barcelona, Spain:
  12. Brunel C. 2016. Pollution offshoring and emissions reductions in EU and US manufacturing. Environ. Resour. Econ. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0035-1 [Crossref]
  13. Brunnermeier SB, Levinson A. 2004. Examining the evidence on environmental regulations and industry location. J. Environ. Dev. 13:6–41 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bustos P. 2011. Trade liberalization, exports, and technology upgrading: evidence on the impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinian firms. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:304–40 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cao J, Qiu LD, Zhou M. 2016. Who invest more in advanced abatement technology: theory and evidence. Can. J. Econ. 49:637–62 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cherniwchan J. 2017. Trade liberalization and the environment: evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing. J. Int. Econ. 105130–49
  17. Cherniwchan J, Copeland BR, Taylor MS. 2013. Environmental regulations and international competitiveness: a review of recent evidence Unpublished manuscript, Univ. Alberta, Edmonton, Can.
  18. Chichilnisky G. 1994. Global environment and north-south trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 84:851–74 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chintrakarn P, Millimet DL. 2006. The environmental consequences of trade: evidence from subnational trade flows. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 52:430–53 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cole MA, Elliott RJ. 2003. Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor, and environmental regulations. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 46:363–83 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cole MA, Elliott RJ, Okubo T. 2014. International environmental outsourcing. Rev. World. Econ. 150:639–64 [Google Scholar]
  22. Copeland BR. 2011. Trade and the environment. Palgrave Handbook of International Trade D Bernhofen, R Falvey, D Greenaway, U Kreickemeier 423–96 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  23. Copeland BR, Taylor MS. 1994. North-south trade and the environment. Q. J. Econ. 109:755–87 [Google Scholar]
  24. Copeland BR, Taylor MS. 1995. Trade and transboundary pollution. Am. Econ. Rev. 85:716–37 [Google Scholar]
  25. Copeland BR, Taylor MS. 2003. Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  26. Copeland BR, Taylor MS. 2004. Trade, growth, and the environment. J. Econ. Lit. 42:7–71 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cristea A, Hummels D, Puzzello L, Avetisyan M. 2013. Trade and the greenhouse gas emissions from international freight transport. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65:153–73 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cui J. 2014. Induced clean technology adoption and international trade with heterogeneous firms Unpublished manuscript, Wuhan Univ., Wuhan, China
  29. Cui J, Lapan H, Moschini G. 2012. Are exporters more environmentally friendly than non-exporters? Theory and evidence Work. Pap. 12022, Dep. Econ., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA
  30. Cui J, Lapan H, Moschini G. 2016. Productivity, export, and environmental performance: air pollutants in the United States. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 98:447–67 [Google Scholar]
  31. Davis LW, Kahn ME. 2010. International trade in used vehicles: the environmental consequences of NAFTA. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2:58–82 [Google Scholar]
  32. Forslid R, Okubo T, Ulltveit-Moe KH. 2015. Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade, abatement and environmental emissions Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Econ., Stockholm Univ., Stockholm, Swed.
  33. Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Syverson C. 2008. Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability?. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:394–425 [Google Scholar]
  34. Frankel JA, Rose AK. 2005. Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev. Econ. Stat. 87:85–91 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gillingham K, Rapson D, Wagner G. 2016. The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10:68–88 [Google Scholar]
  36. Girma S, Hanley A, Tintelnot F. 2008. Exporting and the environment: a new look with microdata Work. Pap. 1423, Kiel Inst. World Econ., Kiel, Ger.
  37. Grether JM, Mathys NA, de Melo J. 2009. Scale, technique and composition effects in manufacturing SO2 emissions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 43:257–74 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grossman G, Krueger A. 1993. Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. The Mexico-U.S. Free Trade Agreement PM Garber 13–56 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Hanna R. 2010. US environmental regulation and FDI: evidence from a panel of US-based multinational firms. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2:158–89 [Google Scholar]
  40. Harrison A, McMillan M. 2011. Offshoring jobs? Multinationals and US manufacturing employment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93:857–75 [Google Scholar]
  41. Holladay JS. 2016. Exporters and the environment. Can. J. Econ. 49:147–72 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 33:132–63 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kellenberg D. 2009. An empirical investigation of the pollution haven effect with strategic environment and trade policy. J. Int. Econ. 78:242–55 [Google Scholar]
  44. Konishi Y, Tarui N. 2015. Emissions trading, firm heterogeneity, and intra-industry reallocations in the long run. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2:1–42 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kreickemeier U, Richter P. 2014. Trade and the environment: the role of firm heterogeneity. Rev. Int. Econ. 22:209–25 [Google Scholar]
  46. Levinsohn J, Petrin A. 2003. Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70:317–41 [Google Scholar]
  47. Levinson A. 2009. Technology, international trade and pollution from US manufacturing. Am. Econ. Rev. 99:2177–92 [Google Scholar]
  48. Levinson A. 2010. Offshoring pollution: Is the US increasingly importing polluting goods?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4:63–83 [Google Scholar]
  49. Levinson A. 2015. A direct estimate of the technique effect: changes in the pollution intensity of US manufacturing 1990–2008. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2:43–56 [Google Scholar]
  50. Levinson A, Taylor MS. 2008. Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int. Econ. Rev. 49:223–54 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lileeva A, Trefler D. 2010. Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity… for some plants. Q. J. Econ. 125:1051–99 [Google Scholar]
  52. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T. 2009. Does trade openness improve environmental quality?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58:346–63 [Google Scholar]
  53. Martin LA. 2012. Energy efficiency gains from trade: greenhouse gas emissions and India's manufacturing sector Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Agr. Res. Econ., Univ. Calif., Berkeley, CA
  54. McAusland C. 2008. Trade, politics, and the environment: tailpipe versus smokestack. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 55:52–71 [Google Scholar]
  55. McAusland C, Millimet DL. 2013. Do national borders matter? Intranational trade, international trade, and the environment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65:411–37 [Google Scholar]
  56. Melitz M. 2003. The impact of trade on aggregate industry productivity and intra-industry reallocations. Econometrica 71:1695–725 [Google Scholar]
  57. Melitz M, Ottaviano GI. 2008. Market size, trade and productivity. Rev. Econ. Stud. 75:295–316 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ravetti C, Baldwin RE. 2014. Emissions, exporters and heterogeneity: asymmetric trade policy and firms' selection Work. Pap. CTEI-2014-2, Cent. Trade Econ. Integr., Geneva, Switz.
  59. Romalis J. 2004. Factor proportions and the structure of commodity trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 94:67–97 [Google Scholar]
  60. Shapiro JS. 2016. Trade costs, CO2, and the environment. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8:220–54 [Google Scholar]
  61. Shapiro JS, Walker R. 2015. Why is pollution from U.S. manufacturing declining? The roles of trade, regulation, productivity, and preferences. NBER Work. Pap. 20879
  62. Taylor MS. 2005. Unbundling the pollution haven hypothesis. Adv. Econ. Anal. Policy 3. https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0637.1408 [Crossref]
  63. Yokoo H. 2009. Heterogeneous firms, Porter hypothesis and trade Unpublished manuscript, Inst. Econ. Res., Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, Jpn.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756
Loading
Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results
Annual Review of Economics 9, 59 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error