• صفحه اصلی
  • بررسی درستی فرضیه پناهندگی آلودگی در صنعت چوب ایران و شرکای تجاری آن

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-1611-3151 (R1) بازدید : 105 صفحه: 149 - 160

10.22034/jest.2019.10903

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

بررسی درستی فرضیه پناهندگی آلودگی در صنعت چوب ایران و شرکای تجاری آن

محورهای موضوعی : اقتصاد محیط زیست

زهره خلیلی اردلی 1 (کارشناسی ارشد جنگل‌داری، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم‌آباد، ایران)
کامران عادلی 2 (استادیار اقتصاد جنگل، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم‌آباد، ایران *(مسوول مکاتبات))
حامد نقوی 3 (استادیار اقتصاد جنگلداری، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم‌آباد، ایران)
مریم اصغری 4 (استادیار دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه شهید اشرفی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1395/09/01 تاریخ پذیرش : 1395/11/24 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/07/01

کلید واژه: فرضیه پناهندگی آلودگی, صنعت چوب, ایران, منحنی محیط زیستی کوزنتس,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: افزایش حجم تجارت منجر به کاهش کیفیت محیط زیست و در واقع انتشار بیش تر گاز دی اکسید کربن می شود. در این راستا اثرات مربوط به جهانی شدن و آزادسازی تجارت در بخش صنعت چوب موجب رشد اقتصادی گردیده است. مطابق با ادبیات موضوعی به دنبال آزادسازی تجاری، انتقال صنایع آلاینده از کشور هایی با سیاست های زیست محیطی شدید به سمت کشور هایی با سیاست های زیست محیطی ملایم افزایش می یابد. هدف از این پژوهش بررسی فرضیه پناهندگی آلودگی صنعت چوب می باشد. روش بررسی: روش کار این پژوهش استفاده از روش پانل دیتا و رهیافت اثرات ثابت در کشور ایران و 16 شریک تجاری چوبی آن، طی بازه زمانی 2015-1995 می باشد. یافته ها: نتایج تصریح مدل دلالت بر این دارد که اثر متقابل شدت تجارت و درآمد سرانه دارای ضریب مثبت و مقدار50/6 می باشد. همچنین ضریب متغیر اثر متقابل شدت تجارت با مجذور درآمد منفی می باشد و به ازای هر واحد افزایش این متغیر، سطح آلودگی سرانه به میزان 54/7 کاهش خواهد یافت. بحث و نتیجه گیری: از این رو مطابق با پایه تئوریِ یافته های مقاله، فرضیه پناهندگی مورد تایید قرار می گیرد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: Increasing the volume of trade leads to lower environmental quality and in fact more CO2 emissions. In this regard, the effects of globalization and trade liberalization on the timber industry have led to economic growth. According to the subject literature following commercial liberalization, the transfer of polluting industries from countries with severe environmental policies to countries with mild environmental policies is increasing. The purpose of this study was to investigate the asylum hypothesis of wood industry pollution. Methods: using panel data and fixed effects approach in Iran and 16 wooden trading partners, during the period 1995-2015. Findings: In this study, panel data and software Stata were used to estimate model. The interactions of trade and per capita income have a positive coefficient of 6.50. Discussion and Conclusion: Our results support the pollution haven hypothesis.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Sadeghi, K., Motefakerazad, M., Porebadelhan, M., Shahbazzadeh khiyavi, A., 2012. The relationship between carbon dioxide emissions, Ali, foreign direct investment, per capita energy consumption and GDP in Iran. Journal of Environmental and energy economics, Vol 1(4), pp. 101–116.
    2.
  2. Jaeger, W. K., 2011. The welfare effects of environmental taxation. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 49(1), pp. 101-119.
    3.
  3. Boulatoff, C., Jenkins, M., 2010. Long-term nexus between openness, income, and   environmental quality. International advances in economic research, Vol 16 (4), pp. 410-418
    4.
  4. Shahbaz, M., Tiwari, A. K., Nasir, M., 2013. The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO 2 emissions in South Africa. Energy Policy, Vol 61, pp. 1452-1459.
    5.
  5. Khalil, S., Inam, Z., 2006. Is trade good for environment? A unit root co integration analysis. The Pakistan Development Review, Vol 15, pp. 1187-1196.
    6.
  6. Ajide, K. B., & Adeniyi, O., 2010. FDI and the environment in developing economies: Evidence from Nigeria. Environmental Research Journal, Vol 4(4), pp. 291-297.
    7.
  7. Grossman G. M., Krueger A. B., 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, vol 39.
    8.
  8. Kijima, M., Nishide, K., Ohyama, A., 2010. Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: A survey. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol 34 (7), pp. 1187-1201.
    9.
  9. Cole, M.A., A.J. Rayner and J. M. Bates., 2000. The environmental Kuznets Curve: An empirical analysis. Journal of environmental and development economics, Vol 2 (4). Pp. 401-416.
    10.
  10. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R. M. S. Taylor., 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for The Environment?". The American Economic Review, Vol 91(4). pp 877-908.
    11.
  11. Millimet, D. L., Roy, J., 2015. Empirical tests of the pollution haven hypothesis when environmental regulation is endogenous. Journal of Applied Econometrics.
    12.
  12. Peng, W. B., Tian, K., Tian, Y. H., Xiang, G. C., 2011. VAR analysis of foreign direct investment and environmental regulation: China's case. Business and Economic Horizons, Vol 5 (2), pp. 13-22.
    13.
  13. Kleemann, L., Abdulai, A., 2013. The impact of trade and economic growth on the environment: Revisiting the cross‐country evidence. Journal of International Development, Vol 25 (2), pp. 180-205.
    14.
  14. Hossain, M. S., 2011. Panel estimation for CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy, Vol 39 (11), pp. 6991-6999.
    15.
  15. Fakpan, U, E, Abang, D., 2014. Environmental Quality and Economic Growth: A Panel Analysis of the" U" in Kuznets.
    16.
  16. Asghari, M., Mohammadi, M.H., 2102. Trade Liberalization of Various Industrial Sectors and its Impact on Iran’s Environmental Quality. Economic Development Research, Volv 2 (8) :41-64. (Persian).
    17.
  17. Cole, M.A., A.J. Rayner and J. M. Bates., 2000. The environmental Kuznets Curve: An empirical analysis. Journal of environmental and development economics, Vol 2 (4). pp. 401-416.
    18.
  18. Baek, J., Cho, Y. S. Koo, W. W., 2009. The Environmental Consequence of Globalization: A Country Specific Time-Series Analysis. Ecological Economics, Vol 68. pp. 2255-2264.
    19.
  19. Wooldridge, J.M., 2003. Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. The American Economic Review, 93(2): 133-138.
    20.
  20. Drukker, D., 2003. Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models, The Stata Journal, Vol 2. pp. 168–177.
    21.
  21. Dinda, S., 2006. Globalization and Environment: Can Pollution Haven Hypothesis Alone Explain the Impact of Globalization on Environment? First Preliminary Draft, pp 1-20.
    22.
  22. Baek, J., Cho, Y. S., Koo, W. W., 2009. The Environmental Consequence of Globalization: A Country Specific Time-Series Analysis. Ecological Economics, Vol 68. pp. 2255-2264.
    23.
  23. Chen, P.P., Gupta, Rangan., 2006. An Investigation of Openness and Economic Growth Using Panel Estimation, University of Pretoria, November 2006.
    24.
  24. Jayanthakumaran, K., Liu, Y., 2012. Openness and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from China. Economic Modeling, Vol 29(3), pp. 566-576.
    25.
_||_

  1. Sadeghi, K., Motefakerazad, M., Porebadelhan, M., Shahbazzadeh khiyavi, A., 2012. The relationship between carbon dioxide emissions, Ali, foreign direct investment, per capita energy consumption and GDP in Iran. Journal of Environmental and energy economics, Vol 1(4), pp. 101–116.
    2.
  2. Jaeger, W. K., 2011. The welfare effects of environmental taxation. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 49(1), pp. 101-119.
    3.
  3. Boulatoff, C., Jenkins, M., 2010. Long-term nexus between openness, income, and   environmental quality. International advances in economic research, Vol 16 (4), pp. 410-418
    4.
  4. Shahbaz, M., Tiwari, A. K., Nasir, M., 2013. The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO 2 emissions in South Africa. Energy Policy, Vol 61, pp. 1452-1459.
    5.
  5. Khalil, S., Inam, Z., 2006. Is trade good for environment? A unit root co integration analysis. The Pakistan Development Review, Vol 15, pp. 1187-1196.
    6.
  6. Ajide, K. B., & Adeniyi, O., 2010. FDI and the environment in developing economies: Evidence from Nigeria. Environmental Research Journal, Vol 4(4), pp. 291-297.
    7.
  7. Grossman G. M., Krueger A. B., 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, vol 39.
    8.
  8. Kijima, M., Nishide, K., Ohyama, A., 2010. Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: A survey. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol 34 (7), pp. 1187-1201.
    9.
  9. Cole, M.A., A.J. Rayner and J. M. Bates., 2000. The environmental Kuznets Curve: An empirical analysis. Journal of environmental and development economics, Vol 2 (4). Pp. 401-416.
    10.
  10. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R. M. S. Taylor., 2001. "Is Free Trade Good for The Environment?". The American Economic Review, Vol 91(4). pp 877-908.
    11.
  11. Millimet, D. L., Roy, J., 2015. Empirical tests of the pollution haven hypothesis when environmental regulation is endogenous. Journal of Applied Econometrics.
    12.
  12. Peng, W. B., Tian, K., Tian, Y. H., Xiang, G. C., 2011. VAR analysis of foreign direct investment and environmental regulation: China's case. Business and Economic Horizons, Vol 5 (2), pp. 13-22.
    13.
  13. Kleemann, L., Abdulai, A., 2013. The impact of trade and economic growth on the environment: Revisiting the cross‐country evidence. Journal of International Development, Vol 25 (2), pp. 180-205.
    14.
  14. Hossain, M. S., 2011. Panel estimation for CO 2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy, Vol 39 (11), pp. 6991-6999.
    15.
  15. Fakpan, U, E, Abang, D., 2014. Environmental Quality and Economic Growth: A Panel Analysis of the" U" in Kuznets.
    16.
  16. Asghari, M., Mohammadi, M.H., 2102. Trade Liberalization of Various Industrial Sectors and its Impact on Iran’s Environmental Quality. Economic Development Research, Volv 2 (8) :41-64. (Persian).
    17.
  17. Cole, M.A., A.J. Rayner and J. M. Bates., 2000. The environmental Kuznets Curve: An empirical analysis. Journal of environmental and development economics, Vol 2 (4). pp. 401-416.
    18.
  18. Baek, J., Cho, Y. S. Koo, W. W., 2009. The Environmental Consequence of Globalization: A Country Specific Time-Series Analysis. Ecological Economics, Vol 68. pp. 2255-2264.
    19.
  19. Wooldridge, J.M., 2003. Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. The American Economic Review, 93(2): 133-138.
    20.
  20. Drukker, D., 2003. Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models, The Stata Journal, Vol 2. pp. 168–177.
    21.
  21. Dinda, S., 2006. Globalization and Environment: Can Pollution Haven Hypothesis Alone Explain the Impact of Globalization on Environment? First Preliminary Draft, pp 1-20.
    22.
  22. Baek, J., Cho, Y. S., Koo, W. W., 2009. The Environmental Consequence of Globalization: A Country Specific Time-Series Analysis. Ecological Economics, Vol 68. pp. 2255-2264.
    23.
  23. Chen, P.P., Gupta, Rangan., 2006. An Investigation of Openness and Economic Growth Using Panel Estimation, University of Pretoria, November 2006.
    24.
  24. Jayanthakumaran, K., Liu, Y., 2012. Openness and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from China. Economic Modeling, Vol 29(3), pp. 566-576.
    25.

سکوی نشر دانش

سند یا سکوی نشر دانش ،سامانه ای جهت مدیریت حوزه علمی و پژوهشی نشریات دانشگاه آزاد می باشد

پیوندهای سایت

مراکز مرتبط

پشتیبانی

صفحات رسمی

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]