Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 59–89 | Cite as

The Energy-Bias of North–South Technology Spillovers: A Global, Bilateral, Bisectoral Trade Analysis

Article

Abstract

We examine variations in the South–North ratios (emerging vs. industrialized countries) of energy and labor intensities driven by imports. We use the novel World input-output database that provides bilateral and bisectoral data for 40 countries and 35 sectors for 1995–2009. We find South–North convergence of energy and labor intensities, an energy bias of import-driven convergence and no robust difference between imports of intermediate and investment goods. Accordingly, trade helps emerging economies follow a ‘green growth’ path, and trade-related policies can enhance this path. However, the effects are economically small and require a long time horizon to become effective. Trade-related policies can become much more effective in selected countries and sectors: China attenuates labor intensity via imports of intermediate goods above average. Brazil reduces energy intensity via imports of intermediate and investment goods above average. Production of machinery as an importing sector in emerging countries can immoderately benefit from trade-related reductions in factor intensities. Electrical equipment as a traded good particularly decreases energy intensity. Machinery particularly dilutes labor intensity. Our main results are statistically highly significant and robust across specifications.

Keywords

Energy intensity Labor intensity Trade Technology diffusion Convergence Emerging countries 

JEL Classifications

C23 F18 F21 O13 O33 O47 Q43 

Supplementary material

10640_2013_9690_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (73 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 72 KB)

References

  1. Acemoglu D (2002) Directed technical change. Rev Econ Stud 69(4):781–809Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D (2010) When does labor scarcity encourage innovation? J Polit Econ 118(6):1037–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2012) The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev 102(1):131–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aitken BJ, Harrison AE (1999) Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. Am Econ Rev 89(3):605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albornoz F, Cole MA, Elliott RJR, Ercolani MG (2009) In search of environmental spillovers. World Econ 32:136–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2009.01160.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amiti M, Konings J (2007) Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs, and productivity: evidence from Indonesia. Am Econ Rev 97(5):1611–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econ 68:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barassi MR, Cole MA, Elliott RJR (2008) Stochastic divergence or convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: re-examining the evidence. Environ Resour Econ 40:121–137. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9144-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bitzer J, Geishecker I (2006) What drives trade-related R &D spillovers? Decomposing knowledge-diffusing trade flows? Econ Lett 93(1):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87(1):115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bwalya SM (2006) Foreign direct investment and technology spillovers: evidence from panel data analysis of manufacturing firms in Zambia. J Dev Econ 81(2):514–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carraro C, De Cian E (2013) Factor-augmenting technical change: an empirical assessment. Environ Model Assess 18(1):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coe D, Helpman E, Hoffmaister A (1997) North-South R &D spillover. Econ J 107:134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole MA (2006) Does trade liberalization increase national energy use? Econ Lett 92:108–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole MA, Elliott RJR, Zhang J (2011) Growth, foreign direct investment and the environment: evidence from Chinese cities. J Reg Sci 51(1):121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2003) Trade and the environment: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:427–431Google Scholar
  20. Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2001) A note on labor productivity and foreign inward direct investment. Appl Econ Lett 8(4):229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Findlay R (1978) Relative backwardness, direct foreign investment, and the transfer of technology: a simple dynamic model. Q J Econ 92(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Girma S (2005) Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 67(3):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Girma S, Görg H (2007) The role of the efficiency gap for spillovers from FDI: evidence from quantile regressions. Open Econ Rev 18(2):215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffith R, Redding S, van Reenen J (2003) R &D and absorptive capacity: theory and empirical evidence. Scand J Econ 105(1):99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffith R, Redding S, van Reenen J (2004) Mapping the two faces of R &D: productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Rev Econ Stat 86(4):883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grossman G, Krueger A (1993) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. In: Garber P (ed) The U.S. Mexico free trade agreement. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 13–56Google Scholar
  27. Havranek T, Irsova Z (2011) Estimating vertical spillovers from FDI: why results vary and what the true effect is. J Int Econ 85:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hübler M, Keller A (2010) Energy savings via FDI? Empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ Dev Econ 15(1):59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jakob M, Haller M, Marschinski R (2012) Will history repeat itself? Economic convergence and convergence in energy use patterns. Energy Econ 34:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Javorcik BS (2004) Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. Am Econ Rev 94(3):605–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller W (2004) International technology diffusion. J Econ Lit 42(3):752–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keller W, Yeaple SR (2009) Multinational enterprises, international trade and productivity growth: firm-level evidence from the United States. Rev Econ Stat 91(4):821–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohpaiboon A (2006) Foreign direct investment and technology spillover: a cross-industry analysis of Thai manufacturing. World Dev 34(3):541–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuo C-C, Yang C-H (2008) Knowledge capital and spillover on regional economic growth: evidence from China. China Econ Rev 19:594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lai M, Peng S, Bao Q (2006) Technology spillovers, absorptive capacity and economic growth. China Econ Rev 17:300–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee G (2006) The effectiveness of international knowledge spillover channels. Eur Econ Rev 50(8):2075–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Madsen JB (2007) Technology spillover through trade and TFP convergence: 135 years of evidence for the OECD countries. J Int Econ 72(2):464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markandya A, Pedroso-Galinato S, Streimikiene D (2006) Energy intensity in transition economies: is there convergence towards the EU average? Energy Econ 28:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer-Foulkes D, Nunnenkamp P (2009) Do multinational enterprises contribute to convergence or divergence? A disaggregated analysis of US FDI. Rev Dev Econ 13(2):304–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Melitz MJ (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson R, Phelps E (1966) Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 61:69–75Google Scholar
  43. Nickell SJ (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49(6):1417–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perkins R, Neumayer E (2009) Transnational linkages and the spillover of environment-efficiency into developing countries. Glob Environ Chang 19(3):375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perkins R, Neumayer E (2012) Do recipient country characteristics affect international spillovers of CO2-efficiency via trade and foreign direct investment? Clim Chang 112(2):469–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roodman D (2009a) How to do xtabond2: an introduction to ”Difference” and ”System” GMM in stata. Stata J 9(1):86–136Google Scholar
  47. Roodman D (2009b) A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 71(1):135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saggi K (2002) Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: a survey. World Bank Res Obs 17(2):191–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Suyanto RAS, Bloch H (2009) Does foreign direct investment lead to productivity spillovers? Firm level evidence from Indonesia. World Dev 37(12):1861–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econ 126:25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for European Economic ResearchMannheimGermany
  2. 2.University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations