The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence
Abstract
Nowhere has the divide between advocates and critics of globalization been more striking than in debates over free trade and the environment. And yet the literature on the subject is high on rhetoric and low on results. This book is the first to systematically investigate the subject using both economic theory and empirical analysis. Brian Copeland and Scott Taylor establish a powerful theoretical framework for examining the impact of international trade on local pollution levels, and use it to offer a uniquely integrated treatment of the links between economic growth, liberalized trade, and the environment. The results will surprise many. The authors set out the two leading theories linking international trade to environmental outcomes, develop the empirical implications, and examine their validity using data on measured sulfur dioxide concentrations from over 100 cities worldwide during the period from 1971 to 1986. The empirical results are provocative. For an average country in the sample, free trade is good for the environment. There is little evidence that developing countries will specialize in pollution-intensive products with further trade. In fact, the results suggest just the opposite: free trade will shift pollution-intensive goods production from poor countries with lax regulation to rich countries with tight regulation, thereby lowering world pollution. The results also suggest that pollution declines amid economic growth fueled by economy-wide technological progress but rises when growth is fueled by capital accumulation alone. Lucidly argued and authoritatively written, this book will provide students and researchers of international trade and environmental economics a more reliable way of thinking about this contentious issue, and the methodological tools with which to do so.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
UNMASKING THE POLLUTION HAVEN EFFECT*
Levinson, A., & Taylor, M. S. (2008) · International Economic Review · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2354.2008.00478.x · Cited by 1,112
Self-citationDong, F., Wang, Y., Su, B., Hua, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.010 · Cited by 359
Does rising income increase or decrease damage risk from natural disasters?
Kellenberg, D. K., & Mobarak, A. M. (2008) · Journal of Urban Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jue.2007.05.003 · Cited by 351
The effectiveness of China’s regional carbon market pilots in reducing firm emissions
Cui, J., Wang, C., Zhang, J., & Zheng, Y. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2109912118 · Cited by 349
Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for an Emerging Field
Greenstone, M., & Jack, B. K. (2015) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.53.1.5 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- McAusland, C., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S.
- Venue
- Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 456
- ISSN
- 0317-0861 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2072620349
- Cited by
- 567
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 69.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3552527
- The paper
- McAusland, C., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques. https://doi.org/10.2307/3552527
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.