Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 257–274 | Cite as

Scale, Technique and Composition Effects in Manufacturing SO2 Emissions

  • Jean-Marie Grether
  • Nicole A. Mathys
  • Jaime de Melo
Article

Abstract

Combining two data sources on emissions with value-added and employment data, this paper constructs six data bases on sulfur dioxide (SO2) intensities that vary across countries, sectors and years. This allows us to perform a growth decomposition exercise where the change in world manufacturing emissions is decomposed into scale, composition and technique effects. The sample covers the period 1990–2000, and includes 62 countries that account for 76% of world-wide emissions. While manufacturing activity has increased by a rough 10% (scale effect), we estimate that emissions have fallen by about 10%, thanks to the adoption of cleaner production techniques (the technique effect) and a small shift towards cleaner industries (between-sector effect). As output and productivity gains have been biased towards large emerging countries like China and India, which are both clean in terms of emissions per unit labor and dirty in terms of emissions per dollar, the sign and magnitude of the between-country effect depends on the choice regarding the scaling factor ( − 2% for employment,  + 25% for value-added, with a corresponding adjustment of the technique effect). The paper also shows that these estimates are robust to changes in aggregation across entities (regions or countries) and across industries, and that composition changes are correlated with changes in prices and trade intensities.

Keywords

Manufacturing activities Bottom-up approach SO2 emissions 

JEL Classification

Q56 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10640_2008_9237_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (818 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 819 kb)

References

  1. Antweiler W, Copeland B, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment?. Am Econ Rev 91(4): 877–908Google Scholar
  2. Brock W, Taylor MS (2005) Economic growth and the environment: a review of theory and empirics. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 28, pp 1749–1821Google Scholar
  3. Cole M, Elliott RJR (2003) Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and the environment. J Environ Econ Manage 46: 363–383. doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00021-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fields GS (2003) Accounting for income inequality and its change: a new method with application to the distribution of earnings in the United States. Res Labor Econ 22: 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working paper No. 3914Google Scholar
  6. Hettige M, Muthukurama DW (1995) IPPS: the industrial pollution project system. World Bank PRWP 1431Google Scholar
  7. Hettige M, Muthukurama DW (2001) Industrial pollution in economic development: Kuznets revisited. J Dev Econ 62: 445–460. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00092-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Israeli O (2007) A shapley-based decomposition of the R-Square of a linear regression. J Econ Inequal 5: 199–212. doi:10.1007/s10888-006-9036-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levinson A (2007) Technology, international trade, and pollution from US manufacturing. NBER Working Paper 13616Google Scholar
  10. Nicita A, Olarreaga M (2007) Trade, production and protection, 1976–2004. World Bank Econ Rev 21(1): 165–171. doi:10.1093/wber/lhl012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Olivier JGJ, Berdowski JJM (2001) Global emission sources and sinks. In: Berdowski J, Guicherit R, Heij B (eds) The climate system. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp 33–78Google Scholar
  12. Shorrocks AF (1999) Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: an unified framework based on the Shapley value, Mimeo, University of Essex. Available at http://giganda.komkon.org/~tacik/science/shapley.pdf
  13. Stern DI (2006) Reversal of the trend in global anthropogenic sulfur emissions. Glob Environ Change 16: 207–220. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Marie Grether
    • 1
  • Nicole A. Mathys
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jaime de Melo
    • 4
  1. 1.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  3. 3.Swiss Federal Office of EnergyBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.University of Geneva, CERDI and CEPRGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations