Environmental policy in the European Union: Fostering the development of pollution havens?
A pollution haven occurs when dirty industries from developed nations relocate to developing nations in order to avoid strict environmental standards or developed nations imports of dirty industries expand replacing domestic production. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the European Union (EU) has increased its imports of "dirty" goods from poorer, less democratic countries during a period of more stringent environmental standards. Previous empirical studies such as those by Levinson and Taylor [Levinson, A., and Taylor, M.S., in press. Unmasking the Pollution Haven Effect. International Economic Review.], Ederington, Levinson and Minier [Ederington, J., Levinson, A., and Minier, J., 2005. Footloose and Pollution-Free. Review of Economics and Statistics., 87: 92-99.], Kahn and Yoshino (2004), and Ederington and Minier [Ederington, J., and Minier. J., 2003. Is Environmental Policy a Secondary Trade Barrier? An Empirical Analysis. Canadian Journal of Economics., 36: 137-54.] find evidence that United States imports are responsive to changes in environmental stringency, but the effects of EU policy have not been examined as thoroughly. Our study follows Kahn [Kahn, M.E., 2003. The Geography of Us Pollution Intensive Trade: Evidence from 1958 to 1994. Regional Science and Urban Economics., 33: 383-400.] and examines the impact of industry energy intensity and toxicity, measured by an energy index and a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) index, on imports into the EU, at the 2-digit industry level from 1970 to 1999. We use the signing of the Maastricht Treaty to signify a period of more uniform and stringent community wide environmental standards (1993-1999), and identify the level of per capita GDP within an EU trading partner. We find an increased amount of EU energy intensive trade with poorer countries during the period with more stringent EU environmental standards. This result is not robust, however, when poorer countries are defined by OECD membership and geographic region. We do not find an increased amount of EU toxic intensive trade with poorer countries although there is some evidence of increased EU imports of toxic goods from poorer OECD and non-EU European countries. For our full sample of trading partners in all regions, the evidence supports the PHH for EU energy intensive trade, but not for toxic intensive trade. Results for regional trade analysis are less clear.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Arik Levinson, 2000. "The Missing Pollution Haven Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(4), pages 343-364, April.
- Cole, Matthew A., 2004. "Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 71-81, January.
- Howard J. Wall, 1999. "Using the gravity model to estimate the costs of protection," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Jan, pages 33-40.
- 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.
- Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2003.
"Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis,"
Canadian Journal of Economics,
Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 137-154, February.
- Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2000. "Is Environmental Policy a Secondary Trade Barrier? An Empirical Analysis," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1507, Econometric Society.
- Werner Antweiler & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 1998.
"Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?,"
NBER Working Papers
6707, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Josh Ederington, Arik Levinson, and Jenny Minier, 2004.
"Trade Liberalization and Pollution Havens,"
gueconwpa~04-04-05, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Josh Ederington, Arik Levinson & Jenny Minier, 2003.
"Footlose and Pollution Free,"
gueconwpa~03-03-04, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Oates, Wallace E. & Portney, Paul R., 2003.
"The political economy of environmental policy,"
Handbook of Environmental Economics,
in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 325-354
- Mulatu Abay & Florax Raymond J.G.M. & Withagen Cees, 2003. "Environmental Regulation and International Trade: Empirical Results for Germany, the Netherlands and the US, 1977-1992," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-30, December.
- Kahn Matthew E & Yoshino Yutaka, 2004. "Testing for Pollution Havens Inside and Outside of Regional Trading Blocs," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-32, October.
- Kahn, Matthew E., 2003. "The geography of US pollution intensive trade: evidence from 1958 to 1994," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 383-400, July.
- 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.
- Per Fredriksson & John List & Daniel Millimet, 2003.
"Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence,"
Natural Field Experiments
00504, The Field Experiments Website.
- Fredriksson, Per G. & List, John A. & Millimet, Daniel L., 2003. "Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1407-1430, August.
- Per Fredriksson & John List & Daniel Millimet, 2003. "Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence," Natural Field Experiments 00495, The Field Experiments Website.
- Daniel Millimet & John List, 2004.
"The Case of the Missing Pollution Haven Hypothesis,"
Journal of Regulatory Economics,
Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 239-262, 08.
- John List & Daniel Millimet, 2004. "The Case of the Missing Pollution Haven Hypothesis," Natural Field Experiments 00493, The Field Experiments Website.
- Copeland,B.R. & Scott Taylor,M., 2003.
"Trade, growth and the environment,"
10, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- 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.
- Yuquing Xing & Charles Kolstad, 2002.
"Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(1), pages 1-22, January.
- Kolstad, Charles D. & Xing, Yuqing, 1998. "Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3268z4rx, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:2:p:253-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.