Skip to main content

Trade openness and pollutant emissions in China: the role of capital abundance and income

Environmental Science and Pollution Research volume 27, pages 35661–35674 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

The role of capital abundance and income in the trade openness and environmental quality debate has long been a concern among academic researchers. The researchers of this paper empirically analyze the effects of trade and other core factors on emissions of four pollutants (SO2, SM, VOC, and NHX), using panel data from 31 provinces in China from 2000 to 2015. Then the scale, composition, technique, and trade elasticities are calculated, based on lower and higher levels of capital abundance and relative income. Furthermore, the researchers calculate the province-specific trade elasticities and analyze the relationship between the province-specific trade elasticities and capital abundance and relative income, respectively. They find a negative effect of trade openness on pollutant emissions in China. The analysis of the elasticities in terms of China’s pollutant emissions shows that the scale and composition elasticities are positive, while technique and trade elasticities are negative. Moreover, provinces with lower capital abundance tend to have more negative trade elasticities, while provinces with higher relative income tend to have more negative trade elasticities. The result implies that both pollution haven effect and factor abundance effect may be at work in Chinese provinces, but the dominance of one effect over the other depends on a province’s level of capital abundance and income.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Tayor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908

  • Chebbi HE, Olarreaga M, Zitouna H (2011) Trade openness and CO2 emissions in Tunisia. Middle East Dev J 3(1):29–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole MA (2004) Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecol Econ 48(1):71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole MA, Elliott RJ (2003) Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3):363–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole MA, Elliott RJ, Okubo T (2010) Trade, environmental regulations and industrial mobility: an industry-level study of Japan. Ecol Econ 69:97–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui J, Lapan H, Moschini G (2016) Productivity, export, and environmental performance: air pollutants in the United States. Am J Agric Econ 98(2):447–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis LW, Kahn ME (2010) International trade in used vehicles: the environmental consequences of NAFTA. Am Econ J Econ Pol 2(4):58–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean JM, Lovely ME (2010) Trade growth, production fragmentation, and China’s environment. In: Wei S-J (ed) Feenstra, R.C. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 429–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean JM (2002) Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test. Can J Econ 35(4):819–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean JM, Lovely ME, Wang H (2009) Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations? Evaluating the evidence from China. J Dev Econ 90(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Derek KK (2008) A reexamination of the role of income for the trade and environment debate. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):106–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty D, Dua A (1997) Sustaining the Asian miracle: economic integration and environmental protection. Washington D C, PIIE

    Google Scholar 

  • Forslid R, Okubo T, Ulltveit-Moe K (2015) Why are firms the export cleaner? International trade, abatement, and environmental emissions. Unpublished Manuscript

  • Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu J, Zhou H (2010) Trade openness, factor endowment and environmental quality: provincial panel data from China. J Int Trade 8:84–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamper-Rabindran S (2006) NAFTA and the environment: what can the data tell us? J Econ Dev Cult Chang 54:605–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez E, Teshima K (2011) Import competition and environmental performance: evidence from Mexican plant-level and satellite imagery data. Mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettige H, Lucas R, Wheeler D (1992) The toxic intensity of industrial production. Am Econ Rev 82(2):464–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Holladay JS (2016) Exporters and the environment. Can J Econ 49(1):147–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jevan C (2017) Trade liberalization and the environment: evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing. J Int Econ 105:130–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Le TH, Chang Y, Park D (2016) Trade openness and environmental quality: international evidence. Energy Policy 92:45–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson A (2009) Technology, international trade, and pollution from US manufacturing. Am Econ Rev 99(5):2177–2192

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson A, Taylor MS (2008) Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int Econ Rev 49(1):223–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison D (2006) Environmental Kuznets curves: a spatial econometric approach. J Environ Econ Manag 51(2):218–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood H, Maalel N, Zarrad O (2019) Trade openness and CO2 emissions: evidence from Tunisia. Sustainability 11:3295

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin LA (2012) Efficiency gains from trade: greenhouse gas emissions and India’s manufacturing firms. Mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Mongelli I, Tassielli G, Notarnicola B (2006) Global warning agreement, international trade and energy/carbon embodiments: an input-output approach to the Italian case. Energy Policy 34(1):88–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad N, Faiz U (2011) Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy 39(3):1857–1864

    Google Scholar 

  • Pata UK (2019) Environmental Kuznets curve and trade openness in Turkey: bootstrap ARDL approach with a structural break. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:20264–20276

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Choliz J, Duarte R (2003) CO2 emissions embodied in international trade: evidence for span. Energy Policy 32(18):1999–2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro JS (2016) Trade costs, CO2 and the environment. Am Econ J Econ Pol 8(4):220–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Strutt A, Anderson K (1999) Estimating environmental effects of trade agreement with global CGE models: a GTAP application to Indonesia. Paper, CIES Discussion

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor MS (2004) Unbundling the pollution haven hypothesis. Adv Econ Anal Policy 3(2):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen HD, Dai J (2020) Trade openness, environmental regulation and human capital in China: based on ARDL cointegration and Granger causality analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:1789–1799

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasmeen R, Li Y, Hafeez M, Ahmad H (2018) The trade-environment nexus in light of governance: a global potential. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:34360–34379

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao X, Yasmeen R, Li Y, Hafeez M, Padda IUH (2019) Free trade agreements and environment for sustainable development: a gravity model analysis. Sustainability 11:597

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

    Xin Peng

  2. School of International Business, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

    Yue Pu

Authors
  1. Xin Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yue Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Peng.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Nicholas Apergis

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 3
figure 3

Trade openness and emissions of SO2, SM, COD, and NHX

Full size image
Table 9 Province list
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, X., Pu, Y. Trade openness and pollutant emissions in China: the role of capital abundance and income. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 35661–35674 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09894-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09894-8

Keywords

  • Trade openness
  • Pollutant emissions
  • Capital abundance
  • Income
  • Elasticity