IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61367.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Intraindustry Trade and the Environment: Is There a Selection Effect?

Author

Listed:
  • Aralas, Sarma B.
  • Hoehn, John P.

Abstract

This paper develops a pollution model of trade in differentiated goods. Our analyses show the following: first, the production of dirty, differentiated goods is explicitly shown to lead to three environmental effects: scale, technique and selection effects. Second, we present a comparative statics analysis of the effects of a change in the stringency of environmental policy on the firm’s level of abatement, the price level, the consumption level, the scale of production and the number of firms in the economy. Third, we examine the relationship between openness to trade and the environment. The impact of intra-industry trade is shown to be the sum of the scale, technique and selection effects. Fourth, we undertake an empirical analysis to test the integrated theoretical predictions of the pollution models of intra-industry as wells as inter-industry trade. We use panel-data from 23 OECD countries, for the years 1995-2004. Statistical evidence suggests the following. First, the emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are increasing in the selection, scale, technique and composition effects. Second, the selection effect is an important and relevant variable in the estimation of the full impact of international trade on emissions level; its omission may lead to biased estimations. Third, results conform to the realizations of data generated by the framework of intra-industry as well as inter-industry trade. Fourth, greater openness to trade or increased trade liberalization leads to a decrease in emissions level.

Suggested Citation

  • Aralas, Sarma B. & Hoehn, John P., 2010. "Intraindustry Trade and the Environment: Is There a Selection Effect?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61367, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61367
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61367/files/11310%20Aralas%20Hoehn%20IIT%20and%20the%20Environment%20AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61367?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. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    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. Teodoro Gallucci & Vesselina Dimitrova & Georgi Marinov, 2019. "Interrelation between Eco-Innovation and Intra-Industry Trade—A Proposal for a Proxy Indicator of Sustainability in the EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-13, November.

    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. Jingwen Lu & Lihua Dai, 2023. "Examining the Threshold Effect of Environmental Regulation: The Impact of Agricultural Product Trade Openness on Agricultural Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, 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. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Ruqayya Ibraheem & Ismat Nasim, 2021. "Globalization, Energy Use and Environmental Degradation in Thailand," iRASD Journal of Energy and Environment, International Research Association for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 2(1), pages 01-11, June.
    5. Coxhead, Ian A. & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2003. "Trade, Liberalization, Resource Degradation and Industrial Pollution in Developing Countries: An Integrated Analysis," Staff Papers 12691, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    6. Muhammad Shahbaz & Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad & Mantu Kumar Mahalik & Perry Sadorsky, 2018. "How strong is the causal relationship between globalization and energy consumption in developed economies? A country-specific time-series and panel analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(13), pages 1479-1494, March.
    7. Yiping Sun & Xiangyi Li & Tengyuan Zhang & Jiawei Fu, 2022. "Does Trade Policy Uncertainty Exacerbate Environmental Pollution?—Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Onder, Harun, 2012. "Trade and Climate Change: An Analytical Review of Key Issues," World Bank - Economic Premise, The World Bank, issue 86, pages 1-8, August.
    9. Monika Jain, 2021. "Was India Right in Not Joining RCEP? A Cost–Benefit Analysis," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 77(4), pages 542-559, December.
    10. Acheampong, Alex O., 2019. "Modelling for insight: Does financial development improve environmental quality?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 156-179.
    11. 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.
    12. Ajayi, Patricia & Ogunrinola, Adedeji, 2020. "Growth, Trade Openness and Environmental Degradation in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 100713, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. 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.
    14. Canfei He & Fenghua Pan & Yan Yan, 2012. "Is Economic Transition Harmful to China’s Urban Environment? Evidence from Industrial Air Pollution in Chinese Cities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(8), pages 1767-1790, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Kakali Mukhopadhyay & Debesh Chakraborty, 2005. "Is liberalization of trade good for the environment? Evidence from India," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 12(1), pages 109-136, June.
    17. David I. Stern, 2017. "The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 7-28, April.
    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:aaea10:61367. 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/aaeaaea.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.