Economic Growth and Transnational Pollution Transfer: Verification of the Trading Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis

Yingbin Zhang

doi:10.63313/SD.9001

Authors

Yingbin Zhang Department of Business, Hunan University of Technology and Science, Xiangtan, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/SD.9001

Keywords:

Per capita GDP, outward pollution transfers, inward pollution transfers, scale effect, structural effect, technological effect

Abstract

With the economic globalization and the development of various countries, transnational pollution transfer has become a common phenomenon and is increasingly being monitored by the international community. This paper uses the fixed-effects regression model and the balanced panel data of 50 countries from 1990 to 2016, innovatively proposes the Trading Environmental Kuznets Curve (TEKC) and empirically tests it from the perspective of the difference between ecological footprint’s import and export, and explains the internal mechanism of the TEKC. The results demonstrate a U-shaped relationship between per capita GDP and the outward pollution transfer amount in pollution transferring countries. The scale effect prevents outward pollution transfer, whereas the structural and technological effects promote it. In pollution-transferred countries, the relationship between per capita GDP and inward pollution transfer amount was inverted U-shaped. The scale effect encourages inward pollution transfer, whereas the structural and technological effects inhibit it. The results of this study confirm that "pollution havens" are universal worldwide and reflect the nonlinear change of pollution transfer amounts under the influence of economic development. The conclusion of this paper is an extensibility verification of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in the field of transnational pollution transfer.

References

[1] Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement.

[2] Aklin, M. (2016). Re-exploring the trade and environment nexus through the diffusion of pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(4), 663-682.

[3] Gamso, J. (2017). Trade partnerships and environmental performance in developing countries. The Journal of Environment & Development, 26(4), 375-399.

[4] Fang, K., Wang, S., He, J., Song, J., Fang, C., & Jia, X. (2021). Mapping the environmental foot-prints of nations partnering the Belt and Road Initiative. Resources, Conservation and Re-cycling, 164, 105068.

[5] Li, M., Du, W., & Tang, S. (2021). Assessing the impact of environmental regulation and en-vironmental co-governance on pollution transfer: micro-evidence from China. Environ-mental Impact Assessment Review, 86, 106467.

[6] Liu, L., Zhao, Z., Zhang, M., Zhou, C., & Zhou, D. (2021). The effects of environmental regula-tion on outward foreign direct investment’s reverse green technology spillover: Crowding out or facilitation?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 284, 124689.

[7] Chung, S. (2014). Environmental regulation and foreign direct investment: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Development Economics, 108, 222-236.

[8] Tang, J. P. (2015). Pollution havens and the trade in toxic chemicals: Evidence from US trade flows. Ecological Economics, 112, 150-160.

[9] Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and development economics, 2(4), 465-484.

[10] Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environ-ment?. American economic review, 91(4), 877-908.

[11] Muhammad, S., Long, X., Salman, M., & Dauda, L. (2020). Effect of urbanization and inter-national trade on CO2 emissions across 65 belt and road initiative countries. Energy, 196, 117102.

[12] Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.

[13] Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Re-search, 27(26), 32683-32694.

[14] Zhang, X. , & Ren, J. . (2011). The relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and in-dustrial structure adjustment for shandong province. Energy Procedia, 5, 1121-1125.

[15] Pata, U. K., & Caglar, A. E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy, 216, 119220.

[16] Katircioğlu, S. T. (2014). Testing the tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: the case of Singa-pore. Economic Modelling, 41, 383-391.

[17] Le, T. H., Chang, Y., & Park, D. (2016). Trade openness and environmental quality: Interna-tional evidence. Energy policy, 92, 45-55.

[18] Pan, D., & Tang, J. (2021). The effects of heterogeneous environmental regulations on wa-ter pollution control: Quasi-natural experimental evidence from China. Science of The To-tal Environment, 751, 141550.

[19] Kolcava, D., Nguyen, Q., & Bernauer, T. (2019). Does trade liberalization lead to environ-mental burden shifting in the global economy?. Ecological Economics, 163, 98-112.

[20] Brandi, C., Schwab, J., Berger, A., & Morin, J. F. (2020). Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener?. World Development, 129, 104899.