Trade in Environmental Goods: Evidences from an Analysis Using Elasticities of Trade Costs

Article

Abstract

Negotiations on the liberalization of environmental goods (EGs) and services within the WTO Doha Round (mandated in November 2001) are facing specific challenges. Conflicting interests and differing perceptions of the benefits of increased trade in EGs were reflected in different approaches proposed for determining EGs. Using import data of 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and from a sample of 167 countries, from 1995 to 2012, we discuss the trade effect of reducing barriers on EGs. We analyze the lists of EGs proposed by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and OECD using a Translog gravity model. We found that removing tariff barriers for EGs will have a modest impact because for the biggest importers and exporters, elasticities of trade costs are very low while for most trading relationships they are very high, making it difficult for exporters to maintain their markets. Overall, our results suggest that, because of their substantial effect on international trade, future negotiations on EGs should also address the issues of standards and nontariff barriers.

Keywords

Environmental goods Translog Gravity Trade costs elasticity Import share 

JEL Classification

F11 F12 F15 

References

  1. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93:170–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JE, van Wincoop E (2004) Trade costs. J Econ Lit 42:691–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkolakis C, Costinot A, Rodríguez-Clare A (2012) New trade models, same old gains? Am Econ Rev 102:94–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Badinger H (2007) Has the EU’s Single Market Programme fostered competition? Testing for a decrease in mark-up ratios in EU industries. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 69:497–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baier SL, Bergstrand JH (2007) Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? J Int Econ 71:72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balineau G, de Melo J (2013) Removing barriers to trade on environmental goods: an appraisal. World Trade Rev 12:693–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin R, Taglioni D (2006) Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER working papers 12516. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  8. Canton L, Soubeyran A, Stahn H (2008) Environmental taxation and vertical Cournot oligopolies: how eco-industries matter. Environ Resour Econ 40:369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaney T (2008) Distorted gravity: the intensive and extensive margins of international trade. Am Econ Rev 98:1707–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen N, Imbs J, Scott A (2009) The dynamics of trade and competition. J Int Econ 77:50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Copeland B, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth and the environment. J Econ Lit 42:7–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cosbey A (2008) Trade and climate change: issues in perspective. International Institute for Sustainable Development, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  13. Cosbey A, Aguilar A, Ashton M, Ponte S (2010) Environmental goods and services negotiations at the WTO: lessons from multilateral environmental agreements and ecolabels for breaking the impasse. International Institute for Sustainable Development, March 2010Google Scholar
  14. Costantini V, Mazzanti M (2012) On the green and innovation side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Res Policy 41:132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. David M, Sinclair-Desgagne B (2010) Pollution abatement subsidies and the eco-industry. Environ Resour Econ 45:71–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. David M, Nimubona A-D, Sinclair-Desgagne B (2011) Emission taxes and the market for abatement goods and services. Resour Energy Econ 33:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Melo J (2015) Trade liberalization at the environmental goods agreement negotiations: what is on the table? How much to expect? In: GGKP green growth knowledge platform-third annual conference fiscal policies and the green economy transition: generating knowledge—creating impactGoogle Scholar
  18. EUROSTAT (2009) The environmental goods and services sector. A data collection handbook. 2009 editionGoogle Scholar
  19. Feenstra R (2003) A homothetic utility function for monopolistic competition models, without constant price elasticity. Econ Lett 78:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feenstra R (2010) New product with a symmetric AIDS expenditure function. Econ Lett 7106:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feenstra RC, Weinstein DE (2010) Globalization, markups, and the US price level. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Felbermayr GJ, Kohler W (2006) Exploring the intensive and extensive margins of world trade. Rev World Econ 142:642–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. GIER [German Institute for Economic Research-DIW Berlin] (2009) Global demand for environmental goods and services on the rise: good growth opportunities for German suppliers, vol 5. Weekly report no. 20/2009, Sept 3Google Scholar
  25. Gohin A, Féménia F (2009) Estimating price elasticities of food trade functions: how relevant is the CES-based gravity approach? J Agric Econ 60:253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greaker M, Rosendahl KE (2008) Environmental policy with upstream pollution abatement technology firms. J Environ Econ Manag 56:246–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. He Q, Fang H, Wang M, Peng B (2015) Trade liberalization and trade performance of environmental goods: evidence from Asia-Pacific economic cooperation members. Appl Econ 47:3021–3039Google Scholar
  28. Head K, Mayer T (2002) Illusory border effects: distance mismeasurement inflates estimates of home bias in trade. Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII). Working paper no. 2002-01Google Scholar
  29. Head K, Mayer T (2013) Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In: Gopinath G, Helpman E, Rogoff K (eds) Handbook of international economics, vol 4. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helpman E, Melitz MJ, Rubinstein Y (2008) Estimating trade flow: trading partners and trading volumes. Q J Econ 123:444–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hummels D, Klenow PJ (2005) The variety and quality of nation’s exports. Am Econ Rev 95:704–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovely M, Popp D (2011) Trade, technology, and the environment: does access to technology promote environmental regulation? J Environ Econ Manag 61:16–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Manzano GN, Prado SA (2015) Evaluation of the APEC environmental goods initiative: a dominant supplier approach. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. DP 2015-34Google Scholar
  36. Martínez-Zarzoso I, Felicitas NLD, Horsewood N (2009) Are regional trading agreements beneficial? Static and dynamic panel gravity models. N Am J Econ Finance 20:46–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melitz MJ, Ottaviano GI (2008) Market size, trade, and productivity. Rev Econ Stud 75:295–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mrazova M, Neary P (2014) Together at last: trade costs, demand structure, and welfare. Am Econ Rev 104:298–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muradian R, O’Connor M, Martinez-Alier J (2002) Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the ‘environmental load displacement’ of industrialised countries. Ecol Econ 41:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nimubona AD (2012) Pollution policy and trade liberalization of environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 53:323–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nimubona AD, Benchekroun H (2015) Environmental R&D in the presence of an eco-industry. Environ Model Assess 20(5):491–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Novy D (2013) International trade without CES: estimating translog gravity. J Int Econ 89:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD [Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development] (2006) Étude sur la politique commerciale, Biens et services environnementaux, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. Olivero MP, Yotov Y (2012) Dynamic gravity: theory and empirical implications. Can J Econ 45:64–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raimondi V, Scoppola M, Olper A (2012) Preference erosion and the developing countries exports to the EU: a dynamic panel gravity approach. Rev World Econ 148:707–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwartz S, Stahn H (2014) Competitive permit markets and vertical structures: the relevance of imperfectly competitive eco-industries. J Public Econ Theory 16(1):69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sugathan M (2013) List of environmental goods: an overview. Information note, Environmental goods and services series. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsurumi T, Managi S, Hibiki A (2015) Do environmental regulations increase bilateral trade flows? BE J Econ Anal Policy 15:1549–1577Google Scholar
  50. Vossenaar R (2013) The APEC list of environmental goods: an analysis of the outcome & expected impact. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva. www.ictsd.org
  51. Vikhlyaev A (2004) Environmental goods and services-defining negotiations or negotiating definitions? J World Trade 38:93–122Google Scholar
  52. Zugravu N (2010) Trade and sustainable development: should “transition countries” open their markets to environmental goods? Unpublished paperGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Consumer ScienceLaval UniversityQuebec CityCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in International Trade and Investment (CISITI)Laval UniversityQuebec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations