The environmental consequences of trade: Evidence from subnational trade flows

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 430-453

  Chintrakarn, Pandej ^a   Millimet, Daniel L ^a  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bilateral trade; Environmental quality; Pollution Haven hypothesis

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; DATABASE SYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HAZARDS;

BILATERAL TRADE; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; POLICY RAMIFICATION; SUBNATIONAL DATA;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; FREE TRADE; POLLUTANT SOURCE; TRADE FLOW;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745610850     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson J.E., and van Wincoop E. Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93 (2003) 170-192
2. Antweiler W., Copeland B.R., and Taylor M.S. Is free trade good for the environment?. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91 (2001) 877-908
3. Arora S., and Cason T.N. An experiment in voluntary environmental regulation: participation in EPA's 33/50 program. J. Econom. Environ. Management 28 (1995) 271-286
4. Arora S., and Cason T.N. Do community characteristics influence environmental outcomes? evidence from the toxic release inventory. Southern Econom. J. 65 (1999) 691-716
5. Brooks N., and Sethi R. The distribution of pollution: community characteristics and exposure to air toxics. J. Econom. Environ. Management 32 (1997) 233-250
6. Combes P.-P., Lafourcade M., and Mayer T. The trade-creating effects of business and social networks: evidence from France. J. Internat. Econom. 66 (2005) 1-29
7. Copeland B.R., and Taylor M.S. Trade, growth, and the environment. J. Econom. Lit. 42 (2004) 7-71
8. Deardorff A. Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world?. In: Frankel J.A. (Ed). The Regionalization of the World Economy (1998), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
9. Dufour J.M. Identification, weak instruments and statistical inference in econometrics: presidential address to the Canadian Economics Association. Canad. J. Econom. 36 (2003) 767-808
10. Edwards S. Openness, trade liberalization, and growth in developing countries. J. Econom. Lit. 31 (1993) 1358-1393
11. Frankel J.A., and Romer D. Does trade cause growth? Amer. Econom. Rev. 89 (1999) 379-399
12. J.A. Frankel, A.K. Rose, Is trade good or bad for the environment? sorting out the causality, NBER Working Paper 9201, 2002.
13. Frankel J.A., and Rose A.K. Is trade good or bad for the environment? sorting out the causality. Rev. Econom. Statist. 87 (2005) 85-91
14. Grossman G., and Krueger A. Environmental impacts of a north american free trade agreement. In: Garber P. (Ed). The U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (1993), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
15. Grossman G., and Krueger A. Economic growth and the environment. Quart. J. Econom. 110 (1995) 353-377
16. Hall A.R., Rudebusch G.D., and Wilcox D.W. Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation. Internat. Econom. Rev. 37 2 (1996) 283-298
17. Harbaugh W.T., Levinson A., and Wilson D.M. Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental kuznets curve. Rev. Econom. Statist. 84 (2002) 541-551
18. D.J. Henderson, S.C. Kumbhakar, Public and private productivity puzzle: a nonparametric approach, Southern Econom. J. 2004, forthcoming.
19. Hillberry R., and Hummels D. Intra-national home bias: some explanations. Rev. Econom. Statist. 85 (2003) 1089-1092
20. Levinson A. State taxes and interstate hazardous waste shipments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89 (1999) 666-677
21. Lieb C.M. The environmental kuznets curve and flow versus stock pollution: the neglect of future damages. Environ. Resource Econom. 29 (2004) 483-506
22. Maasoumi E., and Millimet D.L. Robust inference concerning recent trends in U.S. environmental quality. J. Appl. Econometrics 20 (2005) 55-77
23. Mankiw N.G., Romer D., and Weil D. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quart. J. Econom. 107 (1992) 407-437
24. Millimet D.L. Environmental abatement costs and establishment size. Contemp. Econom. Policy 21 (2003) 281-296
25. Millimet D.L., List J.A., and Stengos T. The environmental kuznets curve: real progress or misspecified models?. Rev. Econom. Statist. 85 (2003) 1038-1047
26. D.L. Millimet, T. Osang, Do state borders matter for U.S. intranational trade? the role of history and internal migration, Canad. J. Econom. 2005, forthcoming.
27. Porter M., and van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econom. Perspect. 9 (1995) 97-118
28. Shea J. Instrument Relevance in multivariate linear models: a simple measure. Rev. Econom. Statist. 49 (1997) 348-352
29. M.S. Taylor, Unbundling the pollution haven hypothesis, Adv. Econom. Anal. Policy 4 (2), Article 8 (2004).
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic chemical release inventory screening guide, vol. 2, Office of Toxic Substance, EPA, Washington, DC, 1989.
31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic chemical release inventory: reporting form R and instructions, revised 1991 version, EPA, Washington, DC, 1992.
32. Wolf H.C. International home bias in trade. Rev. Econom. Statist. 82 (2000) 555-563