This article explores the question of whether there is a trade-off between trade liberalization and environmental quality. Using a computable general equilibrium framework, the author examines the economic, environmental, and welfare impacts of alternative policy scenarios, including a tariff reduction scenario, a carbon tax scenario, and a combined trade and environmental reform scenario. The results of the analysis, in the case of Thailand, show that if the country were to pursue greater trade liberalization alone without a concomitant increase in pollution abatement, there is a modest but real risk that it will become more specialized in dirty activity. If the country pursued pollution abatement without further trade liberalization, the cost in terms of growth does not appear to be significant. When environmental and trade policies are jointly considered, greater substitution away from the polluting energy inputs is observed with the cost on economic growth remaining insignificant.
Armington, P. (1969). A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff Papers, 16, 159-178.
2.
Beghin, J., Roland-Holst, D. W., & van der Mensbrugghe, D. (1995). Trade liberalization and the environment in the pacific basin: Coordinated approaches to Mexican trade and environmental policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 778-785.
3.
Birdsall, N., & Wheeler, D. (1992). Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: Where are the pollution havens? In P. Low (Ed.), International trade and the environment (World Bank Paper No. 159, pp. 159-167). Washington, DC: World Bank.
4.
Bovenberg, A. L., & Goulder, L. H. (1993). Promoting investment under international capital mobility: An intertemporal general equilibrium analysis.ÿScandinavian Journal of Economics, 95(2), 133-156.
5.
Bragga, C. A. P. (1992). Tropical forests and trade policy: The case of Indonesia and Brazil. In P. Low (Ed.) International trade and the environment (World Bank Paper No. 159, pp. 173-193). Washington, DC: World Bank.
6.
Burtraw, D., & Toman, M. (2000). Ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation policies (Issue Brief No. 7). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
7.
Carraro, C. (1999). Imperfect markets, technological innovation, and environmental policy instruments. In J. C. J. M Van den Bergh (Ed.), Handbook of environmental and resource economics (pp. 235-248). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
8.
Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48, 71-81.
9.
Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. R. (2003). Do environmental regulations influence trade patterns? Testing old and new trade theories. World Economy, 26(8), 1163-1186.
10.
Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. R. (in press). FDI and the capital intensity of “dirty” sectors: A missing piece of the pollution haven puzzle. Review of Development Economics.
11.
Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, S. M. (1993). Trade and transboundary pollution (Discussion Paper No. 93-42). British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia.
12.
Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, S. M. (1994). North-south trade and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 755-787.
13.
Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Trade and the environment: Theory and evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Corden, W. M., & Falvey, R. E. (1985). Quotas and the second best. Economic Letters, 18, 67-70.
15.
Dervis, K., de Melo, J., & Robinson, S. (1982). General equilibrium models for development policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Dessus, S., & Bussolo, M. (1998). Is there a trade-off between trade liberalization and pollution abatement? A computable general equilibrium assessment applied to Costa Rica. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(1), 11-31.
17.
Energy Information Administration. (2000). Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 1998: Executive summary. Retrieved April 4, 2005, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg99rpt/index.html
18.
Energy Information Administration. (2002). International energy outlook 2001. Retrieved May 6, 2001, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo01/pdf/0484(2001).pdf
19.
European Economic Community. (1994). The potential benefits of integration of environmental and economic policies: An incentive-based approach to policy integration. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.
20.
Food Market Exchange. (2001). Thailand’s proposal for the fourth WTO Ministerial conference: A clear-cut agenda. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/datacenter/laws/detail/dc_lr_reference_Doha.htm
21.
Garbaccio, R. F., Ho, M. S., & Jorgenson, D. W. (2000). Modeling the health benefits of carbon emissions reductions in China. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
22.
Hettige, H., Lucas, R. E. B., & Wheeler, D. (1992). The toxic intensity of industrial production: Global patterns, trends and trade policy. American Economic Review, 82, 478-481.
23.
Kennedy, P. W. (1994). Equilibrium pollution taxes in open economies with imperfect competition. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 49-63.
24.
Kraus, C. (2000). Import tariffs as environmental policy instruments. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
25.
Kuik, O., & Gerlagh, R. (2003). Trade liberalization and carbon leakage. The Energy Journal, 24(3), 97-120.
26.
Lee, H., & Roland-Holst, W. D. (1997). Trade and the environment. In J. F. Francois & K. A. Reiner (Eds.), Applied methods for trade policy analysis: A handbook (pp. 517-555). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Li, J. C. (2002a). Including local health benefits in assessing GHG mitigation policies. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 14(3), 282-304.
28.
Li, J. C. (2002b). A1998social accounting matrix for Thailand (Discussion Paper No. 95). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, Trade and Macro Economics Division.
29.
Li, J. C. (in press). A multi-period analysis of a carbon tax including local health feedback: An application to Thailand. Environment and Development Economics.
30.
Lluch, C. (1973). The extended linear expenditure system. European Economic Review, 4(1), 21-32.
31.
Lofgren, H., Harris, R. L., Robinson, S., Thomas, M., & El-Said, M. (2001). Astandardcomputable general equilibrium (CGE) model in GAMS (Discussion Paper No. 75). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute Trade and Macroeconomics Division.
32.
Low, P., & Yeats, A. (1992). Do dirty industries migrate? In P. Low (Ed.), International trade and the environment (Discussion Paper No. 159, pp. 89-103). Washington, DC: World Bank.
33.
Methakunavut, N., & Jitsuchon, S. (2001). Productivity growth and external accounts in a computable general equilibrium model. Bangkok, Thailand: Memio.
34.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2000). Export opportunities: Thailand in the global economy. In Ministry of Foreign Affairs business handbook (section 4, pp. 1-42). Retrieved April 4, 2005, from http://www.mfa.go.th/internet/document/h_sec4fin.pdf
35.
National Energy Foundation. (2003). Why do we need to know how much CO2 we produce? Retrieved March 25, 2005, from http://www.natenergy.org.uk/convert.htm
36.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1993). Environmental policies and industrial competitiveness. Paris: Author.
37.
Perroni, C., & Wigle, R. M. (1994). International trade and environmental quality: How important are the linkages?Canadian Journal of Economics, 27, 551-567.
38.
Siebert, H. (1974). Environmental protection and international specialization. Review of World Economics, 110, 494-508.
39.
Sunsite Thailand. (n.d.). Thailand’s character and structure of the economy. Retrieved April 4, 2005, from http://sunsite.au.ac.th/thailand/economy/
40.
Thai Development Research Institute. (2000). The construction of computable general equilibrium. Manuscript submitted for publication.
41.
Tobey, J. A. (1990). The effects of domestic environmental policies on patterns of world trade: An empirical test. Kyklos, 43, 191-210.
42.
Ulph, A. (1996a). Environmental policy and international trade when governments and producers act strategically. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 265-281.
43.
Ulph, A. (1996b). Environmental policy instruments and imperfectly competitive international trade. Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 333-355.
44.
Ulph, A. (1999). Trade and the environment: Selected essays of Alistair M. Ulph. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
45.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2003). Thailand: Based on information collected up to January 2003. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://r0.unctad.org/trains/2003%2520Thailand.html
46.
Warr, P. G. (1998). Estimation of elasticity of substitution/transformation between domestic and imported/exported commodities. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.
47.
Zola, A. M., & Lim, C. (2000). Thailand’s initial national communications under the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment.
