Implications of Globalization and Trade for Water Quality in Transboundary Rivers



Increases in international trade have a variety of effects on the environment through the location, scale, and techniques of production. International trade may also have special effects on transboundary resources, such as international rivers as trade provides greater opportunities for policy coordination between trading partners who share a resource. This chapter discusses several mechanisms by which trade may facilitate coordination: trade may provide opportunities for linkage between environmental and trade concessions, facilitate implicit side payments, grant countries direct leverage over other countries’ production, and instill a perception of shared goals between countries. An empirical section reports a test of the effects of globalization (interpreted in the regression equations as overall trade) and trade specifically between countries sharing a natural resource. The United Nation’s Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS) provides data on water quality at river monitoring stations around the world. We have coded these stations to indicate whether the rivers cross international borders, and if so, which countries share the river. We then merged these data with information on bilateral trade between upstream and downstream countries and characteristics of these countries such as their income levels and trade openness. The results suggest that water pollution is lower in rivers shared between countries with more trade; supporting the hypothesis that trade promotes coordination of environmental policies.


  1. Andreoni J, Levinson A (2001) The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ 80:269-86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91:877-908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett S, Graddy K (2000) Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environ Dev Econ 5:433-56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernauer T (1996) Protecting the Rhine River against chloride pollution. In: Keohane RO, Levy MA (eds) Institutions for environmental aid: Pitfalls and promise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 201-32Google Scholar
  5. Bowie GL et al (1985) Rates, constants, and kinetics formulations in surface water quality modeling, 2nd edn. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunnermeier SB, Levinson A (2004) Examining the evidence on environmental regulations and industry location. J Environ Dev 13:6-41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang HF (1995) An economic analysis of trade measures to protect the global environment. Georget Law J 83:2131-213Google Scholar
  8. Chang HF (1997) Carrots, sticks, and international externalities. Int Rev Law Econ 17:309-24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang HF (2005) Environmental trade measures, the shrimp-turtle rulings, and the ordinary meaning of the text of the GATT. Chapman Law Rev 8:25-51Google Scholar
  10. Congleton RD (1992) Political institutions and pollution control. Rev Econ Stat 74:412-21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conte Grand M (1999) Do regional environmental agreements have any effect on water quality? Universidad del CEMA Working Paper. Scholar
  12. Copeland BR (1996) Pollution content tariffs, environmental rent shifting and the control of cross border pollution. J Int Econ 40:459-76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2003) Trade and the environment: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Dean JM (2002) Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test. Can J Econ 35:819-842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dinar S (2006) Assessing side-payment and cost-sharing patterns in international water agreements: the geographic and economic connection. Polit Geogr 25:412-37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dinar S (2007) International water treaties: Negotiation and cooperation along transboundary rivers. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Giordano M (2003) Managing the quality of international rivers: Global principles and basin practice. Nat Resour J 43:111-36Google Scholar
  18. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1993) Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. In: Garber P (ed) The U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 13-56Google Scholar
  19. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Quart J Econ 110:353-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamner J, Wolf AT (1998) Patterns in international water resource treaties: The Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy. 1997 YearbookGoogle Scholar
  21. Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2001) Penn World Table Version 6.0. Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP), December 2001Google Scholar
  22. International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO) (2005). Viewed March 14, 2005Google Scholar
  23. Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environ Resour Econ 7:45-55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Limão N (2005) Trade policy, cross-border externalities and lobbies: Do linked agreements enforce more cooperative outcomes? J Int Econ 67:175-99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mandel R (1992) Sources of international river basin disputes. Conflict Quart 12:25-56Google Scholar
  26. Neumayer E (2002) Does trade openness promote multilateral environmental cooperation? World Econ 25:815-32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reppelin-Hill V (1999) Trade and environment: An empirical analysis of the technology effect in the steel industry. J Environ Econ Manag 38:283-301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Selden TM, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution? J Environ Econ Manag 27:147-62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sigman H (2004) Does trade promote environmental coordination? Pollution in international rivers. Contrib to Econ Anal and Pol 3, Issue 2, Article 2Google Scholar
  30. Statistics Canada (1998) World Trade Analyzer 1980-96 (Statistics Canada, Ottawa) (CDROM)Google Scholar
  31. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32:1414-39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tobler W, Deichmann U, Gottsegen J, Maloy K (1995) The Global Demography Project, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, UC Santa Barbara, Technical Report TR-95-6Google Scholar
  33. Wolf A (2004) International Freshwater Treaties Database, Viewed June 14, 2004Google Scholar
  34. Wolf A, Natharius J, Danielson J, Ward B, Pender J (1999) International river basins of the world. Int J Water Resour Dev 15:387-427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolf AT, Yoffe SB, Giordano M (2003) International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water Pol 5:29-60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers University in New BrunswickNew JerseyUSA
  2. 2.University of Pennsylvania Law School in PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations