Production Network and Emission Control Targets-Theoretical Approach
-
Reza Eslamipoor
,
Zheng Wang
Abstract
By spurring trade, the level of income and consumption and production increase, which consequently causes a more polluted environment. As global economic integration escalates, the possibility of contention becomes more translucent. The foundation of this article is based on the Ricardian model regarding consumption and production pollution function in six scenarios depending on Autarky or trade situation. There is also a difference in the relative labour size of countries. Also, pollution tightness can clarify whether there are any concerns about climate change regarding the production pollution function and consumption pollution function. The theoretical approach proves that unemployment does not occur when we have no concerns about climate change and this tightness of pollution would not impact the level of production and consumption. The emission intensity, relative labour size and tightness of pollution targets are the key elements discussed in both Autarky and trade. The critical point about trade is that it enters specialization, and the home country only produces good 1 and the foreign country only produces good 2. The main finding of this paper, based on a simple theoretical approach, is about the impact of one unit change in relative labour size regarding pollution tightness with respect to the labour force of both home and foreign countries is provided at the end.
References
Ansari, S., and R. R. Babu. 2018. “5. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).” Yearbook of International Environmental Law 29: 390–7, https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvz032.Search in Google Scholar
Ashraf, A., N. Doytch, and M. Uctum. 2021. “Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment: Disentangling the Impact of Greenfield Investment and Merger and Acquisition Sales.” Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 12 (1): 51–73, https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2019-0184.Search in Google Scholar
Borsatto, J. M. L. S., and L. B. L. Amui. 2019. “Green Innovation: Unfolding the Relation with Environmental Regulations and Competitiveness.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 149: 445–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.005.Search in Google Scholar
Cherniwchan, J., B. R. Copeland, and M. S. Taylor. 2017. “Trade and the Environment: New Methods, Measurements, and Results.” Annual Review of Economics 9: 59–85, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103756.Search in Google Scholar
Copeland, B. R., and M. S. Taylor. 2004. “Trade, Growth, and the Environment.” Journal of Economic Literature 42 (1): 7–71. https://doi.org/10.1257/.42.1.7.Search in Google Scholar
Cole, M. A., R. J. Elliott, T. Okubo, and L. Zhang. 2021. “Importing, Outsourcing and Pollution Offshoring.” Energy Economics 103: 105562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105562.Search in Google Scholar
Hussain, A., and S. Dey. 2021. “Revisiting Environmental Kuznets Curve with HDI: New Evidence from Cross-Country Panel Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 10.3: 324–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2021.1880486.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, J., J. Liang, J. Fang, H. He, and F. Chen. 2022. “How Do Industrial Land Price and Environmental Regulations Affect Spatiotemporal Variations of Pollution-Intensive Industries? Regional Analysis in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 333: 130035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130035.Search in Google Scholar
Ishikawa, J., and T. Okubo. 2011. “Environmental Product Standards in North-South Trade.” Review of Development Economics 15 (3): 458–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2011.00620.x.Search in Google Scholar
Michail, N. A., and K. D. Melas. 2022. “Geopolitical Risk and the LNG-LPG Trade.” Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy 28 (3): 243–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2022-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Neary, J. P. 2006. “International Trade and the Environment: Theoretical and Policy Linkages.” Environmental and Resource Economics 33 (1): 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-1707-4.Search in Google Scholar
Yao, X., R. Yasmeen, Y. Li, M. Hafeez, and I. Padda. 2019. “Free Trade Agreements and Environment for Sustainable Development: A Gravity Model Analysis.” Sustainability 11 (3): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030597.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Survey or Review
- “This Research has Important Policy Implications…”
- Research Articles
- Revisiting the Military Expenditure-Growth Nexus: Does Institutional Quality Moderate the Effect?
- Production Network and Emission Control Targets-Theoretical Approach
- Assessment of the United Nations Good Offices for Conflict Resolution in Yemen
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Survey or Review
- “This Research has Important Policy Implications…”
- Research Articles
- Revisiting the Military Expenditure-Growth Nexus: Does Institutional Quality Moderate the Effect?
- Production Network and Emission Control Targets-Theoretical Approach
- Assessment of the United Nations Good Offices for Conflict Resolution in Yemen
