Footloose and Pollution-Free
26 Pages Posted: 26 May 2003 Last revised: 23 Jul 2022
Date Written: May 2003
Abstract
In numerous studies, economists have found little empirical evidence that environmental regulations affect trade flows. In this paper, we propose and test several common explanations for why the effect of environmental regulations on trade may be difficult to detect. We demonstrate that while most trade occurs among industrialized economies, environmental regulations have stronger effects on trade between industrialized and developing economies. We find that for most industries, pollution abatement costs are a small component of total costs, and are unrelated to trade flows. In addition, we show that those industries with the largest pollution abatement costs also happen to be the least geographically mobile, or footloose.' After accounting for these distinctions, we measure a significant effect of pollution abatement costs on imports from developing countries, and in pollution-intensive, footloose industries.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Trade, Growth and the Environment
By Brian R. Copeland and M. Scott Taylor
-
Trade, Spatial Separation, and the Environment
By Brian R. Copeland and M. Scott Taylor
-
Unmasking the Pollution Haven Effect
By Arik Levinson and M. Scott Taylor
-
International Trade and the Environment: A Framework for Analysis
By Brian R. Copeland and M. Scott Taylor
-
Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis
-
Moving to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pollution-Haven Hypothesis
-
Is Environmental Policy a Secondary Trade Barrier? An Empirical Analysis
By Josh Ederington and Jenny Minier
-
A Simple Model of Trade, Capital Mobility, and the Environment
By Brian R. Copeland and M. Scott Taylor
-
Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality