Industrial energy prices and export competitiveness: evidence from India
Tóm tắt
This paper empirically measures the impact of sectoral energy price differential between trading partners on Indian exports. Using dynamic gravity model, we estimate the response of Indian exports for 11 energy-intensive sectors to sectoral-level energy price asymmetry. We observe the absence of the contemporaneous effect of energy price differential on Indian exports, but the presence of persistence effects. We find that a 10% increase in relative energy prices negatively affects Indian sectoral exports by about 1% ranging from 0.9% for chemicals to 1.4% for non-ferrous metals, revealing a larger impact for energy-intensive sectors. These small effects imply that the concerns of carbon leakage are largely overplayed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abe K, Ishimura G, Tsurumi T, Managi S, Sumaila UR (2017) Does trade openness reduce a domestic fisheries catch? Fish Sci 83(6):897–906
Aichele R, Felbermayr G (2013) The effect of the Kyoto protocol on carbon emissions. J Policy Anal Manag 32(4):731–757
Aichele R, Felbermayr G (2015) Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Rev Econ Stat 97(1):104–115
Aldy JE, Pizer WA (2015) The competitiveness impacts of climate change mitigation policies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 2(4):565–595
Anderson JE, Van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93(1):170–192
Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91:877–908
Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econometr 68:29–52
Babiker MH (2005) Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage. J Int Econ 65:421–445
Baier S, Bergstrand J (2009) Bonus vetus OLS: a simple method for approximating international trade-cost effects using the gravity equation. J Int Econ 77(1):77–85
Baylis K, Fullerton D, Karney DH (2014) Negative leakage. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 1:51–73
Bernstein P, William M, Montogmery D, Rutherford TF, Yang G-F (1999) Effects of restrictions on international permit trading: the MS-MRT model. Energy J Special Issue:221–256
Bhattacharya SK, Bhattacharyay B (2007) Gains and losses of India–China trade cooperation—a gravity model impact analysis. CESifo Working Paper Series No 1970
Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econometr 87(1):115–143
Burniaux J, Martins JO (2000) Carbon emission leakages: a general equilibrium view. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 242, OECD publishing
Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2004) Trade, growth, and the environment. J Econ Lit 42(1):7–71
Cuñat A, Maffezzoli M (2007) Can comparative advantage explain the growth of us trade? Econ J R Econ Soc 117(520):583–602
Demailly D, Quirion P (2008) European emission trading scheme and competitiveness: a case study on the iron and steel industry. Energy Econ 30(4):2009–2027
Elliott J, Foster I, Kortum S, Munson T, Cervantes FP, Weisbach D (2010) Trade and carbon taxes. Am Econ Rev 100(2):465–469
Felder S, Rutherford TF (1993) Unilateral CO2 reduction and carbon leakage. J Environ Econ Manag 25(2):163–176
Frankel JA (2005) The environment and globalization. In: Weinstein M (ed) Globalization: What’s New. Columbia University Press, New York
Gerlagh R, Kuik O (2007) Carbon leakage with international technology spillovers. FEEM Working Paper No 33
Gerlagh R, Mathys NA (2011) Energy abundance, trade and industry location. Nota di Lavoro 003.2011, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan
Halkos G, Managi S, Tsilika K (2018) Measuring air polluters’ responsibility in transboundary pollution networks. Environ Econ Policy Stud 20(3):619–639
Hanna R (2010) US environmental regulation and FDI: evidence from a panel of us-based multinational firms. Am Econ J Appl Econ 2:158–189
Harris MN, Kónya L, Mátyás L (2002) Modelling the impact of environmental regulations on bilateral trade flows: OECD, 1990–1996. World Econ 25(3):387–405
Kagohashi K, Tsurumi T, Managi S (2015) The effects of international trade on water use. PLoS One 10(7):e0132133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
Kumar S, Managi S (2009) Energy price-induced and exogenous technological change: assessing the economic and environmental outcomes. Resour Energy Econ 31(4):334–353
Kumar S, Prabhakar P (2016) Negative carbon leakage: evidence from South Asian countries. SANDEE Working Paper
Kumar S, Fujii H, Managi S (2015) Substitute or complement? Assessing renewable and non-renewable energy in OECD countries. Appl Econ 47(14):1438–1459
Levinson A, Taylor MS (2008) Unmasking the pollution haven effect. Int Econ Rev 49:223–254
Linn J (2008) Energy prices and the adoption of energy-saving technology. Econ J 118(533):1986–2012
Lovo S, Gasiorek M, Tol R (2014) Investment in second-hand capital goods and energy intensity. GRI Working Papers 163, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
Martínez-Zarzoso I (2013) The log of gravity revisited. Appl Econ 45(3):311–327
Monjon S, Quirion P (2010) How to design a border adjustment for the European Union Emissions Trading System? Energy Policy 38(9):5199–5207
Olivero MP, Yotov YV (2012) Dynamic gravity: endogenous country size and asset accumulation. Can J Econ 45(1):64–92
Santos Silva JMC, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658
Sato M, Dechezleprêtre A (2015) Asymmetric industrial energy prices and international trade. Energy Econ 52:S130–S141
Sato M, Singer G, Dussaux D, Lovo S (2015) International and sectoral variation in energy prices 1995–2011: how does it relate to emissions policy stringency? Grantham working paper
Sato M, Kenta K, Managi S (2018) Inclusive wealth, total factor productivity, and sustainability: an empirical analysis. Environ Econ Policy Stud 20(4):741–757
Tripathi S, Leitão NC (2013) India’s trade and gravity model: a static and dynamic panel data. MPRA paper 45502, University Library of Munich, Munich
Tsurumi T, Managi S (2014) The effect of trade openness on deforestation: empirical analysis for 142 countries. Environ Econ Policy Stud 16(4):305–324
Tsurumi T, Managi S, Hibiki A (2015) Do environmental regulations increase bilateral trade flows? J Econ Anal Policy 15(4):1549–1577
Van Beers C, Van den Bergh JCJM (1997) An empirical multi-country analysis of the impact of environmental regulations on foreign trade flows. Kyklos 50:29–46
World Bank (2008) International trade and climate change—economic, legal, and institutional perspectives. IBRD/the World Bank, Washington