Journal of Applied Economic Research
ISSN 2712-7435
Modeling of the Nexus Between Environmental Regulations of Trade Partners and Export Volumes: Analysis of Russian Regions
Yulia D. Sokolova
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
Abstract
Export development is one of the priorities of the Russian economy. Exporters and companies planning to enter the international market face a number of limiting factors. Transitional climate risks, mainly represented by trading partner countries' environmental regulation aimed at internalizing national and global negative environmental externalities, are also among these factors. However, the global climate agenda can not only have a negative impact on export performance, but also generate growth opportunities. The purpose of this study is the econometric modeling of the impact of environmental regulation of trading partner countries on the dynamics of export volumes of Russia's regions based on data for the period of 2013-2020. In addition, the study is aimed at identifying regional factors that determine the sign of the influence of climate regulation of importing countries on export volumes. The study assumes that the effect of climate regulation on export performance is different for the regions of Russia and is determined by institutional and environmental characteristics. The estimation of the gravity equation using the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood method for different subsamples of Russia's regions demonstrated that the stringency of environmental regulation of the partner countries is negatively related to the volumes of Russian exports, but there is a positive correlation in the case of regions characterized by favorable conditions for innovation activity and active environmental policy. It was also detected that the regional budget spending on environmental protection do not provide a stimulating effect of climate regulations. Thus, in order to minimize the negative impact of transitional climate risks, special attention of the state should be paid to creating an environment conducive to innovation and the formation of the most effective environmental policy at the regional and national levels. The theoretical significance of the study lies in expanding the traditional gravity model by including the environmental determinants of trade, while the practical significance of the work is represented by recommendations to regional authorities on minimizing the negative impact of transitional climate risks.
Keywords
regions; export; environmental regulation; conditions for innovation activity; gravity model of international trade; poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood method.
JEL classification
F14, F18, F64References
1. Bernard, A., Jensen, B. (1995). Exporters, jobs and wages in U.S. manufacturing: 1976-1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Microeconomics, Vol. 67, 67–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534772
2. Greenaway, D., Kneller, R. (2004). Exporting and productivity in the United Kingdom. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20, Issue 3, 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grh021
3. Melitz, M. (2003). The Impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, Vol. 71, Issue 6, 1695–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00467
4. Glazatova, M., Daniltsev, A. (2020). Main trends in the development of world trade and structural features of Russian exports. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 1, 183–192. (In Russ.). https://www.doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2020-45-1-8
5. Copeland, B., Taylor, M. (1999). Trade, spatial separation, and the environment. Journal of International Economics, Vol. 47, Issue 1, 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(98)00020-8
6. Nordhaus, W. (2015). Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. American Economic Review, Vol. 105, No. 4, 1339–1370. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.15000001
7. Copeland, B. (1996). Pollution content tariffs, environmental rent shifting, and the control of cross-border pollution. Journal of International Economics, Vol. 40, Issue 3-4, 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1996(95)01415-2
8. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Hemous, D. The environment and directed technical change in a North–South model. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 30, 513–530. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/OXREP/GRU031
9. Ederington, J. (2004). Is environmental policy a secondary trade barrier? An empirical analysis. Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 36. Issue 1, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5982.00007
10. Aichele, R., Felbermayr, G. (2015). Kyoto and carbon leakage: an empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 97, Issue 1, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00438
11. Jacob, M. (2021). Why carbon leakage matters and what can be done against it. One Earth, Vol. 4, Issue 5, 609–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.010
12. Makarov, I., Sokolova, A. (2014). Assessment of carbon intensity of Russian foreign trade. Higher School of Economics Economic Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3. Pp. 477–507. (In Russ.). Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22490928
13. Huang, H., Labys, W. (2002). Environment and trade: a review of issues and methods. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Vol. 2, No. 1-2, 100–160. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2002.000989
14. Porter, M., Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4, 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/JEP.9.4.97
15. Caldwell, L. (1963). Environment: a new focus for public policy? Public Administration Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/973837
16. Goulder, L., Parry, I. (2008). Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/ren005
17. Helm, D., Pearce, D. (1990). Assessment: economic policy towards the environment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/6.1.1
18. Pothen, F., Hubler, M. (2018). The interaction of climate and trade policy. European Economic Review, Vol. 107, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUROECOREV.2018.04.004
19. Konisky, D. (2008). Regulator attitudes and the environmental race to the bottom argument. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18, Issue 2, 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum018
20. Krutilla, K. (1991). Environmental regulation in an open economy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 20. Issue 2, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(91)90046-L
21. LeClair, M., Franceschi, D. (2006). Externalities in international Trade: the case for differential tariffs. Ecological Economics, Vol. 58, Issue 3, 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.021
22. Xu, X. (2000). International trade and environmental regulation: time series evidence and cross section test. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 17, Issue 3, 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026428806818
23. Pethig, R. (1976). Pollution, welfare, and environmental policy in the theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 2. Issue 3, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(76)90031-0
24. Tsurumi, T., Managi, S., Hibiki, A. (2015). Do environmental regulations increase bilateral trade flows? Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 15, Issue 4, 1549–1577. https://doi.org/10.1515/BEJEAP-2014-0164
25. Cagatay, S., Mihci, H. (2006). Degree of environmental stringency and the impact on trade patterns. Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 33, Issue 1, 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443580610639884
26. Tobey, J. (1990). The effects of domestic environmental policies of patterns of world trade: an empirical test. Kyklos, Vol. 43, Issue 2, 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-6435.1990.TB00207.X
27. Van Beers, C., Ven den Bergh, J. (1997). An empirical multi-country analysis of the impact of environmental regulations on foreign trade flow. Kyklos, Vol. 50, Issue 1, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6435.00002
28. Forslid, R., Toshihiro, O., Ulltveit-Moe, K. (2018). Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade, abatement and environmental emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 91, 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEEM.2018.07.006
29. Costantini, V., Mazzanti, M. (2012). On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Research Policy, Vol. 41, Issue 1, 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2011.08.004
30. Guo, Y, Xia, X, Zhang, S, Zhang, D. (2018). Environmental regulation, government R&D funding and green technology innovation: evidence from China provincial data. Sustainability, Vol. 10, Issue 4, 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040940
31. Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Zeng, H. (2015). The effect of environmental regulation on external trade: empirical evidences from Chinese economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 114, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.148
32. Makarov, I., Chen, H., Paltsev, S. (2018). Impacts of Paris Agreement on Russian economy. Voprosy Ekonomiki, Issue 4, 76–94. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-4-76-94
33. Yotov, Y., Piermartini, R., Monteiro, A., Larch, M. (2016). An Advanced Guide to Trade Policy Analysis: The Structural Gravity Model. World Trade Organization, 142 p. https://doi.org/10.30875/ABC0167E-EN
34. Shepherd, B. (2013). The Gravity Model of International Trade: A User Guide. United Nations Publication, 76 p. Available at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:40461468
35. Correia, S., Guimaraes, P., Zylkin, T. (2019). Fast Poisson estimation with high-dimensional fixed effects. The Stata Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 1, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X20909691
36. Syropoulos, C., Felbermayr, G., Kirilakha, A., Yalcin, E., Yotov, Y.V. (2023). The global sanctions data base release 3: COVID-19, Russia, and multilateral sanctions. Review of International Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12691
37. Makarov, I., Chen, H., Paltsev, S. (2020). Impacts of climate change policies worldwide on the Russian economy. Climate Policy, Vol. 20, Issue 10, 1242–1256. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1781047
Acknowledgements
The research funding from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Ural Federal University Program of Development within the Priority-2030 Program) is gratefully acknowledged.
About Authors
Yulia Dmitrievna Sokolova
Research Engineer, Natural Resources Policy Laboratory, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Yekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5991-3061 e-mail: yu.sokolova1999@gmail.com
For citation
Sokolova, Yu.D. (2023). Modeling of the Nexus Between Environmental Regulations of Trade Partners and Export Volumes: Analysis of Russian Regions. Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, 975-1005. https://doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2023.22.4.038
Article info
Received August 17, 2023; Revised September 4, 2023; Accepted September 20, 2023.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2023.22.4.038
Download full text article:
~719 KB, *.pdf
(Uploaded
13.12.2023)
Created / Updated: 2 September 2015 / 20 September 2021
© Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»
Remarks?
select the text and press:
Ctrl + Enter
Portal design: Artsofte
Contact us
Rector's Office
Rector, Dr. Victor Koksharov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-45-03, e-mail: rector@urfu.ru
Vice-Rector for International Relations, Dr. Maxim Khomyakov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-46-27, e-mail: Maksim.Khomyakov@urfu.ru