IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/saeasj/233667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Consequence of Trade Openness for Environmental Goods

Author

Listed:
  • de Alwis, J.M.D.D.J.

Abstract

With the increasing concerns on detrimental environmental effects of world trade, WTO member countries in 2001 called for reduction or elimination of tariffs and non-tariffs barriers on Environmental Goods and Services (EGS) claiming that would improve environmental protection and economic development simultaneously. The study investigated the impact of opening trade of EGS on environmental quality estimating pollution functions of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Dioxides (CO2) using cross country data for 62 countries. Estimated SO2 pollution function revealed that elimination of tariff on EGS trade result in falling SO2 emissions in comparison to increasing SO2 pollution as a result eliminating tariff on non EGS trade. Findings formally support for the liberalization of EGS. Falling of SO2 pollution due to elimination of tariff on EGS is due to differences in countries’ capital-labour endowments. The findings suggests that falling pollution due to EGS trade liberalization has no relationship with the income level of the countries, but favour capital abundant countries in reducing the pollution emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • de Alwis, J.M.D.D.J., 2014. "Environmental Consequence of Trade Openness for Environmental Goods," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 16, pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saeasj:233667
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.233667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/233667/files/sjae16104.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.233667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 877-908, September.
    2. Kalirajan, Kaliappa, 2012. "Regional Cooperation towards Green Asia: Trade and Investment," ADBI Working Papers 350, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    3. World Bank, 2012. "World Development Indicators 2012," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6014, December.
    4. World Bank, 2012. "World Development Report 2012 [Rapport sur le développement dans le monde 2012]," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 4391, December.
    5. Kalirajan, Kaliappa, 2012. "Regional cooperation towards green Asia: Trade in low carbon goods and services," Working Papers 249395, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    6. Cole, Matthew A. & Elliott, Robert J. R., 2003. "Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 363-383, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hu, Xiurong & Pollitt, Hector & Pirie, Jamie & Mercure, Jean-Francois & Liu, Junfeng & Meng, Jing & Tao, Shu, 2020. "The impacts of the trade liberalization of environmental goods on power system and CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2016. "Trade in environmental goods and sustainable development: What are we learning from the transition economies’ experience?," Working Papers 2016.16, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    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. Moinul Islam & Keiichiro Kanemoto & Shunsuke Managi, 2016. "Impact of Trade Openness and Sector Trade on Embodied Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Air Pollutants," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(3), pages 494-505, June.
    2. Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank & Schymura, Michael, 2015. "Peeling the onion: Analyzing aggregate, national and sectoral energy intensity in the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 63-75.
    3. Yan, Bingqian & Xia, Yan & Jiang, Xuemei, 2023. "Carbon productivity and value-added generations: Regional heterogeneity along global value chain," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 111-125.
    4. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    5. Yuping Deng & Helian Xu, 2015. "International Direct Investment and Transboundary Pollution: An Empirical Analysis of Complex Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    7. Matthew A. Cole & Robert J.R. Elliott & Jing Zhang, 2011. "Growth, Foreign Direct Investment, And The Environment: Evidence From Chinese Cities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 121-138, February.
    8. Tang, John P., 2015. "Pollution havens and the trade in toxic chemicals: Evidence from U.S. trade flows," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 150-160.
    9. Ling-Yun He & Liang Wang, 2019. "Import Liberalization of Intermediates and Environment: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Ahmed, Khalid & Hammoudeh, Shawkat, 2017. "Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 221-232.
    11. Imad Moosa, 2019. "The Environmental Effects of FDI: Evidence from MENA Countries," Working Papers 1321, Economic Research Forum, revised 21 Aug 2019.
    12. Roy, Jayjit, 2017. "On the environmental consequences of intra-industry trade," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 50-67.
    13. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2019. "Trade in Environmental Goods and Air Pollution: A Mediation Analysis to Estimate Total, Direct and Indirect Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1125-1162, November.
    14. Ulltveit-Moe, Karen Helene & Forslid, Rikard & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2011. "Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade and CO2 emissions," CEPR Discussion Papers 8583, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Farhani, Sahbi & Mrizak, Sana & Chaibi, Anissa & Rault, Christophe, 2014. "The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: A panel data analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 189-198.
    16. Jayanthakumaran, Kankesu & Verma, Reetu & Liu, Ying, 2012. "CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: A comparative analysis of China and India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 450-460.
    17. Mansor H. Ibrahim & Siong Hook Law, 2016. "Institutional Quality and CO 2 Emission–Trade Relations: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 84(2), pages 323-340, June.
    18. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Oueslati, Walid, 2016. "Are deep and comprehensive regional trade agreements helping to reduce air pollution?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 292, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    19. Jie HE, 2005. "Economic Determinants for China’s Industrial SO2 Emission: Reduced vs. Structural form and the role of international trade," Working Papers 200505, CERDI.
    20. Voigt, Sebastian & De Cian, Enrica & Schymura, Michael & Verdolini, Elena, 2014. "Energy intensity developments in 40 major economies: Structural change or technology improvement?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-62.

    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:saeasj:233667. 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/slaeaea.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.