The effects of FDI and government expenditures on environmental pollution in Korea: the pollution haven hypothesis revisited

Bulus, Gokay Canberk; Koç, Süleyman

doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13462-z

Cited by 82 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, our findings for the HICs confirm that real economic activity in HICs reduces pollution (Chen & Taylor, 2020 ; Hamit-Haggar, 2012 ; Salari et al, 2021 ). Specifically, our results confirm the negative effects running from FDI to CO 2 (Bulus & Koc, 2021 ) and from financial market development to CO 2 (Shoaib et al, 2020 ), and the positive effect running from imports to CO 2 in HICs (Ali & Kirikkaleli, 2021 ). Our empirical findings for UMICs confirm, in general, that real economic activity increases CO 2 emissions in these countries (Ahmed & Shimada, 2019 ; Bhat, 2018 ; Ummalla & Goyari, 2020 ), in particular regarding the positive effect running from government expenditures to CO 2 (Carlsson & Lundström, 2001 ; Fan et al, 2020 ), from international trade to CO 2 (Wu et al, 2021a , 2021b ), and from investment expenditures to CO 2 (Nugraha & Osman, 2018 ; Shahbaz et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Empirical Findingssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…GDP, energy use Granger Causality Findings verified the EKC hypothesis about Cr emissions in Singapore. Additionally, the findings show that Singapore’s post-industrial growth may have contributed to the region’s pollution havens 4 Essandoh et al ( 2020 ) Developed and developing countries 1991–2014 CO 2 emissions, international trade, and FDI inflows Granger causality The decreasing trend in foreign direct investment tends to impede the detrimental effects of CO 2 emission 5 Bulus and Koc ( 2021 ) Korea 1970–2018 CO 2 , FDI, GDP, energy use, renewable energy, government expenditures, exports, imports ARDL N-shaped link between GDP per capita and CO2 emissions per capita. Furthermore, the PHH is somewhat applicable in Korea, and the negative impact of FDI on environmental quality is generally restricted.…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why are some countries cleaner than others? New evidence from macroeconomic governance

Akan

Gündüz

Vanlı

et al. 2022

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate why some countries are cleaner than the others with reference to macroeconomic governance (MEG) in order to explain how major macroeconomic aggregates should be governed to mitigate environmental pollution at the level of economic systems. Using per capita carbon dioxide emissions (CPC) as the proxy for air pollution, and macro-non-financial governance (MNFG) and macro-financial governance (MFG) as the proxies for MEG, the study introduces the systemic and fragmented governance of green complementarities (GCMs) and dirty complementarities (DCMs) as analytic concepts to compare the MEG models for managing pollution in 13 high-income countries (HICs), 10 upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and nine lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the period 1994–2014. The paper concludes that (i) HICs reduced their CPC levels thanks to adopting green systemic governance by creating GCMs between both MNFG and MFG variables in the long run; (ii) UMICs experienced a remarkable increase in their CPC levels due to adopting dirty systemic governance by creating DCMs between the MNFG variables, but prevented pollution from being higher through creating GCMs between the MFG variables; and (iii) LMICs experienced the highest comparative increase in CPC due to adopting a fragmented governance in managing both MNFG–pollution and MFG–pollution nexus.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Findingssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are some countries cleaner than others? New evidence from macroeconomic governance

Akan

Gündüz

Vanlı

et al. 2022

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2021) indicated that the PHH was established in South Korea to a medium extent, and Liu Y.J. (2019) proposed that industrial transfer would have a significant accelerating effect on haze pollution in the transferred-in areas, therefore the environmental regulation did not achieve the desired effects [66,67]. Compared with command control environmental tools, many studies proposed that the market incentive tools and public participation tools should be more effective, which has been applied in environmental governance practice.…”

Section: Estimation Discussion Of Transformation Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Environmental Regulation, Technological Innovation and Green Transformation of Manufacturing Industry in the Yangtze River Economic Belt

Zhao

Ding

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The green transformation of the manufacturing industry is crucial for high-quality development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, and environmental regulation and technological innovation may play key roles. Considering the undesirable output of the manufacturing industry, this paper adopted the undesirable-SE-SBM Model to measure the green transformation efficiency, which can reflect the core transformation performance. On this basis, this paper respectively adopted system generalized method of moments (SYS-GMM) and differential generalized method of moments (DIF-GMM) to explore the driving factors of green transformation, which fully considered the lag variable of transformation efficiency. The estimated results of green transformation showed that the efficiency of the Yangtze River Economic Belt has maintained an overall growth trend, while that of the eastern regions was higher than that of the central and western regions. The regional difference of transformation efficiencies showed a trend of convergence first and then expansion, however, a few regions such as Chongqing have achieved leapfrog development. The estimated results of driving factors showed the first-stage lag affected the green transformation positively, while the second-stage lag had a significantly negative effect. The ratchet effect and cumulative effect led to the continued efforts on green transformation, however, the timeliness of policy might cause a rebound in practice. As mentioned in green paradox, the environmental regulation had a negative effect, which might bring compliance costs. The technology innovation level indeed promoted the green transformation of manufacturing, but the scientific research investment did not exert the expected positive effect, while the utilization of many research funds lacked market orientation. Economic development level had a negative effect on green transformation, and it would play a positive effect only if it reached a certain stage. The industrialization and urbanization affected the efficiency positively, and the external dependence degree had a significant negative effect. It was not clear whether foreign direct investment (FDI) brought a pollution haven or pollution halo effect. In view of these conclusions, local governments should strictly enforce environmental regulations, build the regional green innovation system, improve marketization of research funds, optimize the export structure, and promote new urbanization and new industrialization.

show abstract

“…In addition, some researchers have investigated the “pollution paradise hypothesis”. The “pollution paradise hypothesis” mainly means that enterprises in pollution-intensive industries tend to be established in countries or regions with relatively low environmental standards [ 19 ]. They found that after the improvement of local environmental regulations, pollution-intensive enterprises would transfer to other areas to avoid the high production costs, and the transfer would reduce the local GTFP to a certain extent [ 20 ].…”

Section: Background and Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Environmental Regulation Improve the Green Total Factor Productivity of Chinese Cities? A Threshold Effect Analysis Based on the Economic Development Level

Cheng

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improvement of green total factor productivity (GTFP) through environmental regulation is of great practical significance in promoting the high-quality development of urban economies. Based on panel data for 163 cities in China from 2003 to 2016, five indicators were selected to quantify the effects of environmental regulation: the SO2 removal rate, smoke and dust removal rate, solid waste utilization rate, domestic sewage treatment rate, and waste harmless treatment rate. This study evaluated the impact of environmental regulation on urban GTFP, and analyzed the threshold effect of urban economic development levels. The research results showed that the impact of environmental regulations on GTFP changed as the level of urban economic development increases. When the economic development level was low, environmental regulation had a significant positive effect on GTFP, especially the SO2 removal rate. When the economy developed to reach a medium level, the impact of environmental regulation on GTFP was negative. When the economic development level was high, the SO2 removal rate still had a significant positive impact on GTFP. The solid waste utilization rate had a significant negative impact on GTFP. It was concluded that the government should consider the local economic development level when formulating environmental regulation policies.

show abstract

The effects of FDI and government expenditures on environmental pollution in Korea: the pollution haven hypothesis revisited

Cited by 82 publications

References 89 publications

Why are some countries cleaner than others? New evidence from macroeconomic governance

Why are some countries cleaner than others? New evidence from macroeconomic governance

Research on Environmental Regulation, Technological Innovation and Green Transformation of Manufacturing Industry in the Yangtze River Economic Belt

Does Environmental Regulation Improve the Green Total Factor Productivity of Chinese Cities? A Threshold Effect Analysis Based on the Economic Development Level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About