This study tests the validity of the Porter hypothesis through the examination of the joint effects of green trade and environmental policy stringency on sustainable development in the European Economic Area. To achieve the study objective, data for 14 countries within the region between 2003 and 2015 is analyzed using advanced panel estimation techniques – panel method of moments quantile and nonparametric time-varying coefficient panel models. The empirical analysis yields a number of interesting results. In confirmation of the Porter hypothesis, the interaction term is positive and significant. Specifically, a percentage increase in environmental policy stringency raises the positive impact of green trade on sustainable development by 0.005%. This interactive effect also ranges between 0.002% and 0.007% across quantiles. This indicates that the higher the level of sustainable development, the higher the moderating impact of environmental policy stringency on the relationship between green trade and sustainable development. This suggests that stringent policies are able to induce green technological shocks that cause efficiency improvements and innovation, which in turn promote sustainable development either directly or indirectly through their interactions with green trade. Moreover, the individual and synergistic impacts of environmental policy stringency and green trade are time-varying and sensitive to economic conditions. They become more pronounced in periods of major regional/global economic events. Responsible use of strict environmental policies is advocated, and the removal of green trade barriers is encouraged.
DevuystY. European union: consolidated version of the treaty on European union and consolidated version of the treaty establishing the European community. Int Legal Mater1998; 37: 56–142.
3.
JenkinsV. Communication from the Commission: A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for ‘Sustainable Development’ [Commission's Proposal to the Göteborg European Council]. 2002.
ConnellyJ. Environmental policy in the European union and the contested notion of sustainable development. Marmara Üniversitesi Avrupa Topluluğu Enstitüsü Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi2012; 20: 199–217.
6.
De SantisRJona LasinioC. Environmental policies, innovation and productivity in the EU. Glob Econ J2016; 16: 615–635.
7.
KoźlukTGarsousG. How stringent are environmental policies. In: Policy perspectives. [A review of OECD work on indicators of environmental policy stringency (EPS).] [Online.]. Paris: OECD, 2016, pp. 1–16. Available at:https://www.oecd.org/eco/greeneco/How-stringent-areenvironmental-policies. pdf. (accessed: 25 October 2017).
8.
DetersH. European environmental policy at 50: five decades of escaping decision traps?Environ Policy Gov2019; 29: 315–325.
9.
AlbertonM. Environmental protection in the EU member states: changing institutional scenarios and trends. L'Europe en Formation2012; 1: 287–300.
10.
BottaEKoźlukT. Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: A composite index approach. 2014.
11.
DeanJMLovelyMEWangH. Foreign direct investment and pollution havens: evaluating the evidence from China (No. 1506-2016-130788).2004.
12.
Zugravu-SoilitaN. How does foreign direct investment affect pollution? Toward a better understanding of the direct and conditional effects. Environ Resour Econ2017; 66: 293–338.
PorterMEVan der LindeC. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect1995; 9: 97–118.
15.
XepapadeasAde ZeeuwA. Environmental policy and competitiveness: the porter hypothesis and the composition of capital. J Environ Econ Manage1999; 37: 165–182.
16.
AhmedFKousarSPervaizA, et al.Role of green innovation, trade and energy to promote green economic growth: a case of south Asian nations. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 6871–6885.
17.
LiuCNiCSharmaP, et al.Does green environmental innovation really matter for carbon-free economy? Nexus among green technological innovation, green international trade, and green power generation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 1–9.
18.
LanoiePPatryMLajeunesseR. Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis. J Product Anal2008; 30: 121–128.
19.
PalmerKOatesWEPortneyPR. Tightening environmental standards: the benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm?J Econ Perspect1995; 9: 119–132.
20.
JaffeABPalmerK. Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data study. Rev Econ Statist1997; 79: 610–619.
21.
CanMJebliMBBrusselaersJ. Exploring the impact of trading green technology products on the environment: Introducing the green openness index. Available at SSRN 3804046. 2021.
22.
HuGCanMParamatiSR, et al.The effect of import product diversification on carbon emissions: new evidence for sustainable economic policies. Econ Anal Policy2020; 65: 198–210.
23.
WangCLuY. Can economic structural change and transition explain cross-country differences in innovative activity?Technol Forecast Soc Change2020; 159: 120194.
24.
LeeCCOlasehinde-WilliamsGGyamfiBA. The synergistic effect of green trade and economic complexity on sustainable environment: a new perspective on the economic and ecological components of sustainable development. Sustain Dev2022; 31(2): 976–989.
25.
LeeCCYuanZLeeCC,et al.The impact of renewable energy technology innovation on energy poverty: does climate risk matter?Energy Econ2022; 116: 106427.
26.
AllanGLeccaPMcGregorP,et al.The economic and environmental impact of a carbon tax for Scotland: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Ecol Econ2014; 100: 40–50.
27.
LeeCCOlasehinde-WilliamsG. Does economic complexity influence environmental performance? Empirical evidence from OECD countries. Int J Finance Econ2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2689
28.
OryaniBKamyabHMоridiаnА, et al.Does structural change boost the energy demand in a fossil fuel-driven economy? New evidence from Iran. Energy2022; 254: 124391.
29.
HuangJBOu-YangQFengC. Green trade assessment for sustainable development of Chinese ferrous metal industry. J Cleaner Prod2019; 249: 119382.
30.
SarkodieSAStrezovV. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 646: 862–871.
31.
KangSJLeeS. Impacts of environmental policies on global green trade. Sustainability2021; 13: 1517.
32.
MaximMZanderK. Can a green tax reform entail employment double dividend in European and non-European countries? A survey of the empirical evidence. Int J Energy Econ Policy2019; 9: 218–228.
33.
DoganEHodžićSŠikićTF. A way forward in reducing carbon emissions in environmentally friendly countries: the role of green growth and environmental taxes. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja2022; 35(1): 1–16.
34.
DoganEMadalenoMTaskinD,et al.Investigating the spillovers and connectedness between green finance and renewable energy sources. Renew Energy2022; 197: 709–722.
35.
Freire-GonzálezJ. Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: a critical review. J Policy Model2018; 40: 194–223.
36.
PigouAC. Co-operative societies and income tax. Econ J1920; 30: 156–162.
37.
BaumolWJOatesWE. The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. In: The economics of environment. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1971, pp.53–65.
38.
Solal-ArouetJTersenD. With trump, time to reinvent the European trade policy. Polit Etrang2017; 1: 85–97.
HickelJ. The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecol Econ2020; 167: 106331.
41.
MachadoJASilvaJS. Quantiles via moments. J Econom2019; 213: 145–173.
42.
HertogJ. Review of Economic Theories of Regulation. Utrecht School of Economics, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series 10-18. 2010.
43.
ChambersDMcLaughlinPAStanleyL. Regulation and poverty: an empirical examination of the relationship between the incidence of federal regulation and the occurrence of poverty across the US states. Public Choice2019; 180: 131–144.
44.
ChambersDO’ReillyC. The economic theory of regulation and inequality. Public Choice2022; 193: 63–78.
45.
McDonnell D and Werner A. International populism: The radical right in the European Parliament. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica2020; 51: 154–158.
46.
ShapiroJSWalkerR. Why is pollution from US manufacturing declining? The roles of environmental regulation, productivity, and trade. Am Econ Rev2018; 108: 3814–3854.
47.
WangKYanMWangY,et al.The impact of environmental policy stringency on air quality. Atmos Environ2020; 231: 117522.
48.
DingSZhangMSongY. Exploring China's carbon emissions peak for different carbon tax scenarios. Energy Policy2019; 129: 1245–1252.
PangRZhengDShiM,et al.Pollute first, control later? Exploring the economic threshold of effective environmental regulation in China's context. J Environ Manag2019; 248: 109275.
51.
RapanosVTPolemisML. Energy demand and environmental taxes: the case of Greece. Energy Policy2005; 33: 1781–1788.
52.
MardonesCBaezaN. Economic and environmental effects of a CO2 tax in Latin American countries. Energy Policy2018; 114: 262–273.
53.
AcemogluDAkcigitUHanleyD,et al.Transition to clean technology. J Polit Econ2016; 124: 52–104.
54.
HashimHZubirMAKamyabH,et al.Decarbonisation of the industrial sector through greenhouse gas mitigation, offset, and emission trading schemes. Chem Eng Trans2022; 97: 511–516.
55.
OsinubiTAdedoyinAOlufemiO,et al.Does tourism affect sustainable development in MINT countries?Glob J Emerg Mark Econ2022; 15(1): 09749101211064388.
56.
TawiahVZakariAAdedoyinFF. Determinants of green growth in developed and developing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 39227–39242.
57.
KruegerA. Why trade liberalization is good for growth. Econ J1998; 108: 1513–1522.
58.
WereM. Differential effects of trade on economic growth and investment: a cross-country empirical investigation. J Afr Trade2015; 2: 71–85.
59.
CopelandBRScott-TaylorM. North-South trade and the environment. Q J Econ1994; 109: 755–787.
60.
BranderJAScott-TaylorM. International trade between consumer and conservationist countries. Resour Energy Econ2000; 19: 267–297.
61.
United Nations World Economic Survey. New York: United Nations Publication, 1962.
62.
KaldorN. International trade and economic development. J Mod Afr Stud1964; 2: 491–511.
63.
MountfordA. Trade dynamics and endogenous growth: an overlapping-generations analysis. Economica1999; 66: 209–224.
64.
LiXOzturkISyedQR, et al.Does green environmental policy promote renewable energy consumption in BRICST? Fresh insights from panel quantile regression. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja2022; 35(1): 1–17.
65.
MensahJ. Sustainable development: meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: literature review. Cogent Soc Sci2019; 5: 1653531.
66.
DadaJTAjideFMAdeizaA. Shadow economy and environmental pollution in West African countries: the role of institutions. Glob J Emerg Mark Econ2022; 14: 366–389.
67.
KruseTDechezleprêtreASaffarR,et al.Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: An update of the OECD composite EPS indicator. 2022.
68.
AfshanSOzturkIYaqoobT. Facilitating renewable energy transition, ecological innovations and stringent environmental policies to improve ecological sustainability: evidence from MM-QR method. Renew Energy2022; 196: 151–160.
DoganESmythRZhangX. A nonparametric panel data model for examining the contribution of tourism to economic growth. Preprint.2018. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328758783 (accessed: 12 March 2020).
71.
LeeCCOlasehinde-WilliamsG. Gasoline demand elasticities in the world’s energy gluttons: a time-varying coefficient approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 64830–64847.
72.
PhilipLDSertogluKAkadiriSS,et al.Foreign direct investment amidst global economic downturn: is there a time-varying implication for environmental sustainability targets?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 21359–21368.
73.
LiddleBSmythRZhangX. Time-varying income and price elasticities for energy demand: evidence from a middle-income panel. Energy Econ2020; 86: 104681.
74.
Olasehinde-WilliamsGLeeCCFolorunshoA. What does export diversification do for energy demand? Evidence from the global north. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 83: 1–10.
75.
LiDChenJGaoJ. Non-parametric time-varying coefficient panel data models with fixed effects. Econom J2011; 14: 387–408.
76.
SilvapullePSmythRZhangX,et al.Nonparametric panel data model for crude oil and stock market prices in net oil importing countries. Energy Econ2017; 67: 255–267.
77.
HailemariamASmythRZhangX. Oil prices and economic policy uncertainty: evidence from a nonparametric panel data model. Energy Econ2019; 83: 40–51.
78.
MammenE. Bootstrap and wild bootstrap for high dimensional linear models. Ann Statist1993; 21(1): 255–285.
79.
DavidsonRFlachaireE. The wild bootstrap, tamed at last. J Econom2008; 146: 162–169.
