International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 923–954 | Cite as

Cooperation in environmental policy: a spatial approach

Article

Abstract

Inefficient competition in emissions taxes for foreign direct investment creates benefits from international cooperation. In the presence of cross-border pollution, proximate (neighboring) countries have greater incentives to cooperate than distant ones as illustrated by a model of tax competition for mobile capital. Spatial econometrics is used to estimate participation in 110 international environmental treaties by 139 countries over 20 years. Empirical evidence of increased cooperation among proximate countries is provided. Furthermore, strategic responses in treaty participation vary across country groups between OECD and non-OECD countries and are most evident in regional agreements.

Keywords

Environmental agreements Foreign direct investment Spatial econometrics 

JEL Classification

F53 Q58 

References

  1. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Boston: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? The American Economic Review, 91, 877–908. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barba Navaretti, G., & Venables, A. J. (2006). Multinational firms in the world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, S. (1994). Strategic environmental policy and international trade. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 325–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., & Stillman, S. (2003). Instrumental variables and GMM: estimation and testing. Stata Journal, 3, 1–31. Google Scholar
  6. Beron, K. J., Murdoch, J. C., & Vijverberg, W. P. M. (2003). Why cooperate? Public goods, economic power, and the Montreal Protocol. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 286–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blonigen, B. A., & Davies, R. B. (2004). The effects of bilateral tax treaties on US FDI activity. International Tax and Public Finance, 11, 601–622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blonigen, B. A., Davies, R. B., Waddell, G. R., & Naughton, H. (2007). FDI in space: spatial autoregressive relationships in foreign direct investment. European Economic Review, 51, 1303–1325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blonigen, B. A., & Piger, J. M. (2011). Determinants of foreign direct investment. (National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series, working paper 16704). Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  10. Brunnermeier, S. B., & Levinson, A. (2004). Examining the evidence on environmental regulations and industry location. The Journal of Environment & Development, 13, 6–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brueckner, J. K. (2003). Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review, 26, 175–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CEPII (2009). Distance database online. http://www.cepii.fr/. Accessed October 2009.
  13. Chander, P., & Tulkens, H. (1995). A core-theoretic solution for the design of cooperative agreements on transfrontier pollution. International Tax and Public Finance, 2, 279–293. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chander, P., & Tulkens, H. (2006). The core of an economy with multilateral environmental externalities. In P. Chander, J. Drèze, C. K. Lovell, & J. Mintz (Eds.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition (pp. 153–175). New York: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. (2003). Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 363–383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole, M. A., Elliot, R. J., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2006). Endogenous pollution havens: does FDI influence environmental regulations? Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 108, 157–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 412–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cremer, H., & Gahvari, F. (2004). Environmental taxation, tax competition, and harmonization. Journal of Urban Economics, 55, 21–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies, R. B., & Vadlammanti, K. C. (2013). A race to the bottom in labor standards? An empirical investigation. Journal of Development Economics, 103, 1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dean, J. M. (2002). Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test. Canadian Journal of Economics, 35, 819–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dellink, R. B., Finus, M., & Olieman, N. J. (2008). The stability likelihood of an international climate agreement. Environmental & Resource Economics, 39, 357–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Devereux, M., Lockwood, B., & Redoano, M. (2008). Do countries compete over corporate tax rates. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1210–1235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drukker, D. M., & Millimet, D. L. (2007). Assessing the pollution haven hypothesis in an interdependent world. Southern Methodist University working paper, working paper number 0703. Faculty of Economics, Southern Methodist University. Google Scholar
  24. Eaton, J., & Tamura, A. (1994). Bilateralism and regionalism in Japanese and US trade and direct foreign investment patterns. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 8, 478–510. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ederington, J., & Minier, J. (2003). Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36, 137–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eerola, E. (2004). Environmental tax competition in the presence of multinational firms. International Tax and Public Finance, 11, 283–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Egger, P., Jessberger, C., & Larch, M. (2011). Trade and investment liberalization as determinants of multilateral environmental agreement membership. International Tax and Public Finance, 18, 605–633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eliste, P., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2004). Environmental regulations, transfers, and trade: theory and evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43, 234–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frankel, J. A., & Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87, 85–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fredriksson, P. G., & Millimet, D. L. (2002). Strategic interaction and the determination of environmental policy across US states. Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 101–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fredriksson, P. G., List, J. A., & Millimet, D. L. (2003). Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1407–1430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fredriksson, P. G., List, J. A., & Millimet, D. L. (2004). Chasing the smokestack: strategic policymaking with multiple instruments. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 387–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Freedom House (2005). Freedom in the world country rankings: 1972–2005 dataset online. http://www.freedomhouse.org. Accessed October 2002.
  34. Fuller, W. A. (1977). Some properties of a modification of the limited information estimator. Econometrica, 45, 939–954. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gresik, T. A. (2001). The taxing task of taxing transnationals. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 800–838. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hahn, J., Hausman, J., & Kuersteiner, G. (2004). Estimation with weak instruments: accuracy of higher-order bias and MSE approximations. Econometrics Journal, 7, 272–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harbaugh, W. T., Levinson, A., & Wilson, D. M. (2002). Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 541–551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henderson, D. J., & Millimet, D. L. (2007). Pollution abatement costs and foreign direct investment inflows to US states: a nonparametric reassessment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 178–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2002). Penn world table version 6.1, Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP). https://pwt.sas.upenn.edu. Accessed October 2002.
  40. Hoel, M. (1997). Environmental policy with endogenous plant locations. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 99, 241–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Javorcik, B. S., & Wei, S. (2004). Pollution havens and foreign direct investment: dirty secret or popular myth? Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3, 8. Google Scholar
  42. Jeppesen, T., List, J. A., & Folmer, H. (2002). Environmental regulations and new plant locations: evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Regional Science, 42, 19–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelejian, H. H., & Prucha, I. R. (1998). A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17, 99–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klemm, A., & van Parys, S. (2012). Empirical evidence on the effects of tax incentives. International Tax and Public Finance, 19, 393–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levinson, A. (2001). An industry adjusted index of state environmental compliance costs. In C. Carraro & G. E. Metcalf (Eds.), Behavioral and distributional effects of environmental policy (pp. 131–158). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levinson, A. (2003). Environmental regulatory competition: a status report and some new evidence. National Tax Journal, 56, 91–106. Google Scholar
  47. List, J. A., Millimet, D. L., Fredriksson, P. G., & McHone, W. W. (2003). Effects of environmental regulations on manufacturing plant births: evidence from a propensity score matching estimator. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 944–952. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magee, C. S. (2003). Endogenous preferential trade agreements: an empirical analysis. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 2, 15. Google Scholar
  49. Managi, S., Hibiki, A., & Tsurumi, T. (2009). Does trade openness improve environmental quality. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 346–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Markusen, J. R., Morey, E. R., & Olewiler, N. (1995). Competition in regional environmental policies when plant locations are endogenous. Journal of Public Economics, 56, 55–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mason, M. (2005). The new accountability: environmental responsibility across borders. London: Earthscan. Google Scholar
  52. McAusland, C. (2002). Cross-hauling of polluting factors. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 448–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mitchell, R. B. (2002–2008). International environmental agreements database project (version 2007.1). http://iea.uoregon.edu/. Date accessed: February 2009.
  54. Mitchell, R. B. (2003). International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 28, 429–461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murdoch, J. C., Sandler, T., & Vijverber, W. P. M. (2003). The participation decisions versus the level of participation in an environmental treaty: a spatial probit analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 337–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Naughton, H. T. (2010). Globalization and emissions in Europe. European Journal of Comparative Economics, 7, 503–519. Google Scholar
  57. Neumayer, E. (2002). Does trade openness promote multilateral environmental cooperation? The World Economy, 25, 815–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rauscher, M. (1995). Environmental regulation and the location of polluting industries. International Tax and Public Finance, 2, 229–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rauscher, M. (1997). International trade, factor movements, and the environment. Oxford: Clarendon. Google Scholar
  60. Roberts, J. T., Parks, B. C., & Vasquez, A. A. (2004). Who ratifies environmental treaties? Institutionalism, structuralism and participation by 192 nations in 22 treaties. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 22–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rose, A. K., & Spiegel, M. M. (2009). Noneconomic engagement and international exchange: the case of environmental treaties. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 41, 337–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sigman, H. (2002). International spillovers and water quality in rivers: do countries free ride? The American Economic Review, 92, 1152–1159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sigman, H. (2004). Does trade promote environmental coordination? Pollution in international rivers. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3, 2. Google Scholar
  64. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In J. H. Stock & D. W. K. Andrews (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in honor of Thomas J. Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. UNCTAD (2012). Foreign direct investment database online. http://www.unctad.org. Accessed February 2009.
  66. Wang, W., & Lee, L. (2013a). Estimation of spatial autoregressive models with randomly missing data in the dependent variable. Econometrics Journal, 16, 73–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, W., & Lee, L. (2013b). Estimation of spatial panel data models with randomly missing data in the dependent variable. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43, 521–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson, J. D. (1986). A theory of interregional tax competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 296–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilson, J. D. (1999). Theories of tax competition. National Tax Journal, 52, 269–304. Google Scholar
  70. World Bank (2009). The little green data book 2009. Washington: World Bank. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity College DublinBelfield, Dublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations