IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/diedps/222017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Handel und Umweltschutz: Chancen und Risiken

Author

Listed:
  • Brandi, Clara

Abstract

In diesem Papier werden exemplarisch drei Themen im Kontext von Umweltschutz und internationalem Handel diskutiert: erstens, die Rolle des globalen Handelsregimes für die Ausgestaltung von Umweltpolitiken, zweitens, die Folgen des Regulierungswettbewerbs für das Niveau von Umweltschutzregulierungen und, drittens, das Verlagerungsproblem im Kontext des internationalen Handels. Die Regeln der WTO sowie zunehmend bilaterale, regionale und plurilaterale Handelsabkommen stellen einen Regelrahmen dar, in dem Umweltpolitik gestaltet werden muss. Während die multilateralen Verhandlungen stocken, gibt es zahlreiche Verhandlungen für bilaterale und (mega-)regionale Handelsabkommen. Die Verhandlungen dieser Abkommen, darunter CETA und TTIP, bergen Risiken für den Umweltschutz, unter anderem im Kontext von regulatorischer Kooperation oder des Investorenschutzes und der Rolle von Schiedsgerichten. Es ist daher erforderlich, dass der Umwelt- und Ressourcenschutz die Berücksichtigung findet, die sicherstellt, dass umweltpolitische Belange nicht unterwandert werden. Die Frage des Regulierungswettbewerbs im Umweltschutz unterstreicht, dass umweltpolitische Regulierungsmaßnahmen nicht nur durch die nationale Brille, sondern auch aus einer globalen Perspektive betrachtet werden sollten. Laut der Theorie des Regulierungswettbewerbs im Umweltschutz treibt Konkurrenz das umweltpolitische Regulierungsniveau nach unten. Einige Studien finden Belege dafür, dass es Regulierungswettläufe nach unten (race to the bottom) gibt. Insgesamt liefern empirische Studien jedoch keine eindeutige Evidenz dafür, dass der verstärkte internationale Wettbewerb zwangsläufig zu einer Abwärtsspirale führt. Einige Studien finden Hinweise auf einen Aufwärtstrend bzw. differenzierte Ergebnisse für Auf- und Abwärtstrends. Es besteht Bedarf an einer adäquaten Datenbasis für die Untersuchung des Regulierungswettbewerbs im Umweltschutz, auch um besser analysieren zu können, wie ein race to the bottom verhindert werden und ein race to the top gefördert werden kann. Im Zuge der Globalisierung kommt es zu Verlagerungen, die das Potenzial haben, den Umweltschutz zu unterminieren. Es zeigt sich, dass Umweltregulierungen internationale Handelsströme im Sinne des Pollution-Haven-Effekts beeinflussen können. Neue Daten auf Firmenebene zum Pollution Offshoring finden Evidenz dafür, dass Unternehmen im Zuge der Globalisierung strengere nationale Umweltregulierungen umgehen und Teile ihrer Produktionsprozesse ins weniger stark regulierte Ausland verlagern. Zahlreiche Studien finden darüber hinaus Belege dafür, dass die Verlagerung der Umweltwirkungen durch den internationalen Handel im Sinne von impacts embodied in trade substanziell ist. Insgesamt verdeutlicht der Fokus auf das Verlagerungsproblem, dass Umweltpolitik als globale und nicht als nationale Herausforderung gesehen werden muss.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandi, Clara, 2017. "Handel und Umweltschutz: Chancen und Risiken," IDOS Discussion Papers 22/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:diedps:222017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/199512/1/die-dp-2017-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernando Broner & Paula Bustos & Vasco Carvalho, 2011. "Sources of comparative advantage in polluting industries," Economics Working Papers 1331, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Dec 2019.
    2. Levinson, Arik, 2014. "California energy efficiency: Lessons for the rest of the world, or not?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 269-289.
    3. Aseem Prakash & Matthew Potoski, 2006. "Racing to the Bottom? Trade, Environmental Governance, and ISO 14001," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 350-364, April.
    4. Grether, Jean-Marie & Mathys, Nicole A., 2013. "The pollution terms of trade and its five components," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 19-31.
    5. M. Scott Taylor, "undated". "Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results NBER Working Paper No. 22636," Working Papers 2016-46, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 01 Dec 2016.
    6. Chase, Peter & Pelkmans, Jacques, 2015. "This time it�s different: Turbo-charging regulatory cooperation in TTIP," CEPS Papers 10659, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    7. Sato, Misato, 2014. "Product level embodied carbon flows in bilateral trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 106-117.
    8. repec:clg:wpaper:2008-02 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Cherniwchan, Jevan, 2017. "Trade liberalization and the environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 130-149.
    10. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 1994. "North-South Trade and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(3), pages 755-787.
    11. Arik Levinson, 2009. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2177-2192, December.
    12. Jevan Cherniwchan & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2017. "Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 59-85, September.
    13. Moana Simas & Richard Wood & Edgar Hertwich, 2015. "Labor Embodied in Trade," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(3), pages 343-356, June.
    14. Rahel Aichele & Gabriel Felbermayr, 2015. "Kyoto and Carbon Leakage: An Empirical Analysis of the Carbon Content of Bilateral Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 104-115, March.
    15. Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 1998. "Environmental Regulation, Investment Timing, and Technology Choice," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 235-256, June.
    16. John A. List & Shelby Gerking, 2000. "Regulatory Federalism and Environmental Protection in the United States," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 453-471, August.
    17. Arik Levinson & M. Scott Taylor, 2008. "Unmasking The Pollution Haven Effect," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(1), pages 223-254, February.
    18. Aleksandar Zaklan & Bente Bauer, 2015. "Europe's Mechanism for Countering the Risk of Carbon Leakage," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 72, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Horstmann, Britta & Hein, Jonas, 2017. "Aligning climate change mitigation and sustainable development under the UNFCCC: a critical assessment of the Clean Development Mechanism, the Green Climate Fund and REDD+," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 96, number 96.
    20. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 29-39.
    21. Moran, Daniel D. & Lenzen, Manfred & Kanemoto, Keiichiro & Geschke, Arne, 2013. "Does ecologically unequal exchange occur?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 177-186.
    22. Berger, Axel & Brandi, Clara & Bruhn, Dominique & Chi, Manjiao, 2017. "Towards “greening” trade? Tracking environmental provisions in the preferential trade agreements of emerging markets," IDOS Discussion Papers 2/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    23. Brian R. Copeland, 2013. "Trade and the Environment," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Daniel Bernhofen & Rod Falvey & David Greenaway & Udo Kreickemeier (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of International Trade, chapter 15, pages 423-496, Palgrave Macmillan.
    24. Arik Levinson, 2010. "Offshoring Pollution: Is the United States Increasingly Importing Polluting Goods?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 63-83, Winter.
    25. Rema Hanna, 2010. "US Environmental Regulation and FDI: Evidence from a Panel of US-Based Multinational Firms," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 158-189, July.
    26. Rachel McCormick, 2006. "A Qualitative Analysis of the WTO's Role on Trade and Environment Issues," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(1), pages 102-124, February.
    27. Taylor M. Scott, 2005. "Unbundling the Pollution Haven Hypothesis," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, June.
    28. Copeland, Brian R & Taylor, M Scott, 1995. "Trade and Transboundary Pollution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 716-737, September.
    29. Xiaoyang Li & Yue Maggie Zhou, 2016. "Offshoring Pollution While Offshoring Production," Working Papers 16-09r, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    30. M. Lenzen & D. Moran & K. Kanemoto & B. Foran & L. Lobefaro & A. Geschke, 2012. "International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 109-112, June.
    31. Sorsa, Piritta*DEC, 1994. "Competitiveness and environmental standards : some exploratory results," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1249, The World Bank.
    32. Hampel-Milagrosa, Aimée & Brankamp, Hauke & Cremer, Thomas & Haddad, Alexander & Pannwitz, Katharina & Wehinger, Franziska & Agasty, Sangeeta & Sarkar, Tamal, 2017. "Retail FDI liberalisation and the transformation of agrifood value chains in India," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 95, number 95.
    33. Mockshell, Jonathan & Kamanda, Josey Ondieki, 2017. "Beyond the agroecological and sustainable agricultural intensification debate: is blended sustainability the way forward?," IDOS Discussion Papers 16/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    34. David M. Konisky, 2007. "Regulatory Competition and Environmental Enforcement: Is There a Race to the Bottom?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 853-872, October.
    35. Xiaoyang Li & Yue Maggie Zhou, 2016. "Offshoring Pollution While Offshoring Production," Working Papers 16-09, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    36. Daniel C. Esty, 2001. "Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 113-130, Summer.
    37. Levinson, Arik, 1996. "Environmental regulations and manufacturers' location choices: Evidence from the Census of Manufactures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1-2), pages 5-29, October.
    38. Eric Neumayer, 2001. "Do countries fail to raise environmental standards? An evaluation of policy options addressing "regulatory chill"," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(3), pages 231-244.
    39. Altenburg, Tilman & Fischer, Cecilia & Huck, Kerstin & Kruip, Anna & Müller, Sören & Sörensen, Stefanie, 2017. "Managing coastal ecosystems in the Philippines: what Cash for Work programmes can contribute," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 94, number 94.
    40. Claire Brunel, 2014. "Pollution Offshoring and Emission Reductions in European and US Manufacturing," Working Papers gueconwpa~14-14-01, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    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. Altenburg, Tilman, 2017. "Arbeitsplatzoffensive für Afrika," IDOS Discussion Papers 23/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    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. Brandi, Clara & Schwab, Jakob & Berger, Axel & Morin, Jean-Frédéric, 2020. "Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Qirjo, Dhimitri & Pascalau, Razvan & Krichevskiy, Dmitriy, 2019. "CETA and Air Pollution," MPRA Paper 95608, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Barrows, Geoffrey & Ollivier, Hélène, 2021. "Foreign demand, developing country exports, and CO2 emissions: Firm-level evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Damien Dussaux & Francesco Vona & Antoine Dechezleprêtre, 2020. "Carbon Offshoring: Evidence from French Manufacturing Companies," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03403069, HAL.
    5. Damien Dussaux & Francesco Vona & Antoine Dechezleprêtre, 2023. "Imported carbon emissions: Evidence from French manufacturing companies," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 593-621, May.
    6. Jevan M. Cherniwchan & M. Scott Taylor, 2022. "International Trade and the Environment: Three Remaining Empirical Challenges," NBER Working Papers 30020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7j6trda2ip9uja53ghj5qo32rg is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Suárez-Varela, Marta & Rodríguez-Crespo, Ernesto, 2022. "Is dirty trade concentrating in more polluting countries? Evidence from Africa," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 728-744.
    9. M. Scott Taylor, "undated". "Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results NBER Working Paper No. 22636," Working Papers 2016-46, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 01 Dec 2016.
    10. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Peterson, Sonja & Wanner, Joschka, 2022. "The impact of trade and trade policy on the environment and the climate: A review," Kiel Working Papers 2233, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Duan, Yuwan & Ji, Ting & Lu, Yi & Wang, Siying, 2021. "Environmental regulations and international trade: A quantitative economic analysis of world pollution emissions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    12. Hartmut Egger & Udo Kreickemeier & Philipp M. Richter, 2021. "Environmental Policy and Firm Selection in the Open Economy," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(4), pages 655-690.
    13. Shi, Xinzheng & Zhang, Ming-ang, 2023. "Waste import and air pollution: Evidence from China's waste import ban," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. LaPlue, Lawrence D., 2019. "The environmental effects of trade within and across sectors," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 118-139.
    15. Jevan Cherniwchan & Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2017. "Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 59-85, September.
    16. Jevan Cherniwchan & Nouri Najjar, 2021. "Free Trade and the Formation of Environmental Policy: Evidence from US Legislative Votes," Carleton Economic Papers 21-11, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 24 Feb 2022.
    17. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2017. "Environmental and resource economics: A Canadian retrospective," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1381-1413, December.
    18. Xiao Chen & Alan Woodland, 2013. "International trade and climate change," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(3), pages 381-413, June.
    19. Shon Ferguson & Mark Sanctuary, 2019. "Why is carbon leakage for energy-intensive industry hard to find?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-24, January.
    20. Geoffrey Barrows & Helene Ollivier, 2018. "Foreign Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Empirical Evidence with Implications for Leakage," Working Papers 2018.16, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    21. Joseph S. Shapiro & Reed Walker, 2018. "Why Is Pollution from US Manufacturing Declining? The Roles of Environmental Regulation, Productivity, and Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3814-3854, December.

    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:zbw:diedps:222017. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ditubde.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.