IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/330990.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conflicting Perspectives in Trade and Environmental Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Buchner, Barbara K.
  • Roson, Roberto

Abstract

International trade negotiations have recently tackled the issue of possible free trade restrictions, justified - among others - on the basis of environmental concerns. Also, some analyses of international environmental agreements (especially in the field of climate change) have highlighted the key role played by changes in the terms of trade in determining the cost of environmental policies. Yet, secondary effects of international trade remain disregarded in many environmental policies, whereas the introduction of environmental trade barriers has been resisted, arguing that this may hide a Trojan horse of a renewed protectionism. This paper reviews the debate on trade and the environment in the two fields of environmental and trade negotiations, highlighting the different and somewhat conflicting approach adopted in the two cases. A numerical general equilibrium model in used to illustrate how different "perceptions" (translated in terms of alternative model closures) affect the use of instruments, the distributional impact of the various policies, and the strategic interplay between negotiators in international agreements.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchner, Barbara K. & Roson, Roberto, 2002. "Conflicting Perspectives in Trade and Environmental Negotiations," Conference papers 330990, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:330990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330990/files/305.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen D. Oliner & Daniel E. Sichel, 2000. "The Resurgence of Growth in the Late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 3-22, Fall.
    2. Fallon, P R & Layard, P R G, 1975. "Capital-Skill Complementarity, Income Distribution, and Output Accounting," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(2), pages 279-301, April.
    3. Haskel, Jonathan & Heden, Ylva, 1999. "Computers and the Demand for Skilled Labour: Industry- and Establishment-Level Panel Evidence for the UK," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(454), pages 68-79, March.
    4. Davis, Donald R., 1998. "Technology, unemployment, and relative wages in a global economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1613-1633, November.
    5. Karl Whelan, 2002. "Computers, Obsolescence, And Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 445-461, August.
    6. James A. Kahn & Jong-Soo Lim, 1998. "Skilled Labor-Augmenting Technical Progress in U. S. Manufacturing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1281-1308.
    7. Greenwood, Jeremy & Hercowitz, Zvi & Krusell, Per, 1997. "Long-Run Implications of Investment-Specific Technological Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 342-362, June.
    8. Tyers, Rod & Yang, Yongzheng, 2000. "Capital-Skill Complementarity and Wage Outcomes Following Technical Change in a Global Model," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 16(3), pages 23-41, Autumn.
    9. Rowthorn, Robert, 1999. "Unemployment, Wage Bargaining and Capital-Labour Substitution," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 413-425, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin J. Stiroh, 2002. "Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1559-1576, December.
    2. Marianne P. Bitler, 2001. "Small business and computers: adoption and performance," Working Paper Series 2001-15, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    3. Hasan Bakhshi & Jens Larsen, 2001. "Investment-specific technological progress in the United Kingdom," BIS Papers chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Empirical studies of structural changes and inflation, volume 3, pages 49-80, Bank for International Settlements.
    4. Claudio MATTALIA, 2002. "Information Technologies, Economic Growth and Productivity Shocks," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2002026, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    5. Marco Vivarelli, 2013. "Technology, Employment and Skills: An Interpretative Framework," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 66-89, June.
    6. Mattalia, Claudio, 2013. "Embodied technological change and technological revolution: Which sectors matter?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 249-264.
    7. Werner Roeger, 2001. "The contribution of information and communication technologies to growth in Europe and the US: A macroeconomic analysis," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 147, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    8. Hashmat Khan & Marjorie Santos, 2002. "Contribution of ICT Use to Output and Labour-Productivity Growth in Canada," Staff Working Papers 02-7, Bank of Canada.
    9. Karl Whelan, 2002. "Some New Economy Lessons for Macroeconomists," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 68(1), pages 21-36.
    10. Basu, Susanto & Fernald, John G. & Shapiro, Matthew D., 2001. "Productivity growth in the 1990s: technology, utilization, or adjustment?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 117-165, December.
    11. Dale W. Jorgenson & Mun S. Ho & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2005. "Growth of US Industries and Investments in Information Technology and Higher Education," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 403-478, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Marquis, Milton H. & Trehan, Bharat, 2008. "On using relative prices to measure capital-specific technological progress," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1390-1406, December.
    13. Oliner, Stephen D. & Sichel, Daniel E. & Stiroh, Kevin J., 2008. "Explaining a productive decade," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 633-673.
    14. Diego Martínez, y José L. Torres & Jesús Rodríguez-López & José L. Torres, 2008. "Productivity growth and technological change in Europe and us," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2008/12, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    15. Ignacio Hernando & Soledad Núñez, 2004. "The contribution of ICT to economic activity: a growth accounting exercise with Spanish firm-level data," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 28(2), pages 315-348, May.
    16. Alexander Murray, 2017. "What Explains the Post-2004 U.S.Productivity Slowdown?," CSLS Research Reports 2017-05, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    17. Arvanitidis, Paschalis & Petrakos, George, 2007. "Characteristics of Dynamic Regions in the World Economy: Defining Knowledge-Driven Economic Dynamism," Papers DYNREG19, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    18. Gordon, Robert J. & Sayed, Hassan, 2020. "Transatlantic Technologies: The Role of ICT in the Evolution of U.S. and European Productivity Growth," CEPR Discussion Papers 15011, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Hung, Juann & Salomon, Matt & Sowerby, Stacia, 2004. "International trade and US productivity," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-25, April.
    20. BOUCEKKINE, Raouf & DE LA CROIX, David & LICANDRO, Omar, 2006. "Vintage capital," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2006024, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:330990. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.