Environmental Impact of Customs Union Agreement with EU on Turkey’s Trade in Manufacturing Industry
AbstractIn this study, we analyze Turkey’s manufacturing industry trade by estimating sectoral import and export demand equations for 1980-2000. The study aims to understand whether the trade in the manufacturing industry complies with pollution haven hypothesis, and whether the free trade environment provided by the customs union (CU) agreement altered the trade pattern of the clean and dirty industries. Results of our econometric models have shown that while CU positively affects the import demand, it does not have any significant impact on the export demand of Turkish manufacturing industry. In terms of the environmental impact, distinction between clean and dirty industries turns out to be significant for both import and export demand. In general, our findings suggest that both clean and dirty industries’ import demand increase during the study period. In terms of export demand, clean industries’ export demand declines whereas dirty industries’ export demand increases compared to the total demand.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by ERC - Economic Research Center, Middle East Technical University in its series ERC Working Papers with number 0603.
Length: 25 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2006
Date of revision: Mar 2006
Environmental impact analysis; EU; Turkey; manufacturing industry;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-02-24 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2007-02-24 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-INT-2007-02-24 (International Trade)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2002.
"Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality,"
NBER Working Papers
9201, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
- Frankel, Jeffrey & Rose, Andrew K., 2003. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," Working Paper Series rwp03-038, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Eskeland, Gunnar S. & Harrison, Ann E., 2003.
"Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis,"
Journal of Development Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-23, February.
- Eskeland, Gunnar S. & Harrison, Ann E., 1997. "Moving to greener pastures : multinationals and the pollution-haven hypothesis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1744, The World Bank.
- Gunnar A. Eskeland & Ann E. Harrison, 2002. "Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 8888, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
- Goldstein, Morris & Khan, Mohsin S., 1985. "Income and price effects in foreign trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: R. W. Jones & P. B. Kenen (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 1041-1105 Elsevier.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Erol Taymaz).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.