Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:46:07.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and trade policies: some methodological lessons*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

V. Kerry Smith and
J. Andrès Espinosa
V. Kerry Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Box 90097, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
J. Andrès Espinosa
Affiliation:
American Express, 2630 North 25th Avenue, 4th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85021, USA
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of recent research on the interconnections between environmental and trade policies. It describes how the assumptions of these models can be important to the conclusions derived on the gains from coordination. The Harrison–Rutherford–Wooton CGE model of the European Union is used to illustrate the importance of these issues. This model was extended to include three air pollutants and their health effects as non-separable influences on household preferences in each region described by the model. The results suggest that the conventional assumption of separability in preferences between marketed and non-marketed goods is central to conclusions about the importance of coordination of these policies.

Information

Type
Theory and Applications
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1996, pp. 19 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © 1996, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J.E. and Neary, J.P. (1992), ’A new approach to evaluating trade policy’, Working Paper WPS1022, International Economics Department, The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (1992), ’The standard welfare economics of policies affecting trade and the environment’, in Anderson, K. and Blackhurst, R., eds., The Greening of World Trade Issues, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ballard, C.L. and Medema, S.G. (1993), ‘The marginal efficiency effects of taxes and subsidies in the presence of externalities: a computational general equilibrium approach’, Journal of Public Economics 52: 199–216.Google Scholar
Barbier, E.B. and Rauscher, M. (1994), ’Trade, tropical reforestation and policy interventions’, Environmental and Resource Economics 4: 75–90.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T., Blum, L. and Varian, H. (1986), ’On the private provision of public goods’, Journal of Public Economics 29: 25–50.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., Krutilla, K. and Viscusi, W.K. (1995), ’Energy taxation as a policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions: a net benefit analysis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 1–24.Google Scholar
Chichilnisky, G.. (1994), ’North-South trade and the global environment’, American Economic Review 84: 851–875.Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R. (1994), ’International trade and the environment: policy reform in a polluted small open economy’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (1994), ‘North-South trade and the environment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 755–787.Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (1995a), ‘Trade and transboundary pollution’, American Economic Review (in press).Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S. (1995b), ‘Trade, nonconvexities and the environment’, UBC Discussion Papers No. 95–19, Department of Economics, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W.H., Banzhaf, H.S., Smith, J.S., Johnson, F.R. and Wilson, K.N. (1994), Assessing Environmental Externality Costs for Electricity Generation in Wisconsin, vols. 1 and 3, Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.Google Scholar
Espinosa, J.A. and Smith, V.K. (1995), ‘Measuring the environmental consequences of trade policy: a non-market CGE analysis’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77: 772–777.Google Scholar
Gamaletsos, T. (1971), ‘International comparisons of consumer expenditure patterns: an econometric analysis’, PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1993), ‘Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement’, in Garber, P., ed., The Mexico-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., Rutherford, T.F. and Wooton, J. (1989), ‘The economic impact of the European Community’, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 79: 288–294.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., Rutherford, T.F. and Wooton, I. (1991), ‘An empirical database for a general equilibrium model of the European Community’, Empirical Economics 16: 95–120.Google Scholar
Helpman, E., and Krugman, P.O. (1985), Market Structure and Foreign Trade, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (1991), Geography and Trade, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krutilla, K. (1991), ‘Environmental regulation in an open economy’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20: 127–142.Google Scholar
Lluch, C. and Powell, A.A. (1975), ‘International comparisons of expenditure patterns’, European Economic Review 15(4): 786–797.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. (1994), ‘The environment as a factor of production: the effects of economic growth and trade liberalization’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27, 163–184.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. and Niklitschek, M. (1991), ‘Dual economic growth in poor tropical areas’, Journal of Development Economics 36: 189–211.Google Scholar
Markandya, A. and Rhodes, B. (1992), ‘External costs of fuel cycles: an impact pathway approach—economic valuation’, report for EC/US Fuel Cycle Study, Merroeconomica, Ltd.Google Scholar
Oates, W.E., Portney, P.R. and McGartland, A.M. (1989), ‘The net benefits of incentive based regulation: a case study of environmental standard setting’, American Economic Review 59: 1233–1242.Google Scholar
Perroni, C. and Wigle, R.M. (forthcoming), ‘International trade and environmental quality: how important are the linkages?’, Canadian Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
Piggott, J., Whalley, J. and Wigle, R. (1992), ‘International linkages and carbon reduction initiatives’, in Anderson, K. and Blackhurst, R., eds., The Greening of World Trade Issues, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pollak, R.A. and Wales, T.J. (1981), ‘Demographic variable in demand analysis’, Econometrica 49: 1533–1551.Google Scholar
Repetto, R.. (1995), Jobs, Competitiveness and Environmental Regulation: What Are the Real Issues?, Washington DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K. (1992), ‘Environmental costing for agriculture: will it be standard fare in the Farm Bill of 2000?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 1076–1088.Google Scholar