Is trade liberalization a hazard to sustainable environment? : fresh insight from ASEAN countries

• Autorzy: Mahrinasari M. S. , Haseeb Muhammad , Ammar Jreisat , Meiryani

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17512/pjms.2019.19.1.19

Warianty tytułu

PL

Czy liberalizacja handlu stanowi zagrożenie dla zrównoważonego środowiska? : aktualne spojrzenie z krajów ASEAN

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The importance of trade liberalization in altering country’s ecological condition is a very important topic these days; the current examination seeks to study the empirical association between environmental degradation and trade openness in a panel of ASEAN countries. In doing so, the study seeks to analyze the influence of trade liberalization in impacting carbon dioxide emanations in the countries of Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Philippine by utilizing advanced methods of panel Dynamic Ordinary Least Square (DOLS) and Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square (FMOLS). The results confirm that all the variables stationary features at the first differential series. Furthermore, the results of bootstrap cointegration, Pedroni, and Kao cointegration check that all the variables are cointegrated in the long term. Finally, the outcomes suggested that trade liberalization has a significant positive impact on carbon dioxide emission. The outcomes confirm that the more theenhance in the liberalization of trade cause the poor environmental condition. Therefore, the study recommends that the government need to enhance trade based on renewable and green technology. Also, the government can adopt a green transportation system such as hybrid vehicles for the logistics and shipping the good from one place to another place.

PL

Znaczenie liberalizacji handlu w zmianie stanu ekologicznego kraju jest obecnie bardzo ważnym tematem. Artykuł ma na celu zbadanie empirycznego związku między degradacją środowiska a otwartością handlu w grupie krajów ASEAN. Badanie ma na celu przeanalizowanie wpływu liberalizacji handlu na oddziaływanie emisji dwutlenku węgla w Malezji, Indonezji, Singapurze, Tajlandii i Filipinach dzięki wykorzystaniu zaawansowanych metod Dynamic Ordinary Least Square (DOLS) i Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square (FMOLS). Wyniki potwierdzają, że wszystkie zmienne są usytułowane w pierwszej serii różnicowej. Ponadto wyniki kointegracji bootstrap, kointegracji Pedroniego i Kao sprawdzają, czy wszystkie zmienne są zintegrowane w dłuższej perspektywie. Wreszcie wyniki sugerują, że liberalizacja handlu ma znaczny wpływ na emisję dwutlenku węgla. Wyniki potwierdzają, że im większa jest liberalizacja handlu, tym gorszy jest stan środowiska. Dlatego w badaniu zaleca się, aby rząd wzmocnił handel oparty na odnawialnych i zielonych technologiach. Ponadto rząd może przyjąć ekologiczny system transportowy, taki jak pojazdy hybrydowe dla logistyki i wysyłki towaru między różnymi destynacjami.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

environmental degradation; trade liberalization; bootstrapping cointegration; ASEAN

PL

degradacja środowiska; liberalizacja handlu; kointegracja bootstrapping; ASEAN

• Wydawca: Czestochowa University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Management Studies
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 19, No. 1
• Strony: 249--259
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 34 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Mahrinasari M. S.

• Faculty of Economics and Business, The University of Lampung Indonesia

autor

Haseeb Muhammad

• Taylors Business School (TBS), Taylors University Lakeside Campus Selangor Malaysia

autor

Ammar Jreisat

• Department of Accounting, Banking and Finance, Al Ain University of Science and Technology Abu Dhabi, UAE

autor

Meiryani

• Accounting Department, Faculty of Economics and Communication, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480

Bibliografia

• 1. Ali H.S., Law S.H., Zannah T.I., 2016, Dynamic impact of urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness on CO2 emissions in Nigeria, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 23(12).
• 2. Al-Mulali U., Ozturk I., 2015, The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region, “Energy”, 84.
• 3. Al-Mulali U., Weng-Wai C., Sheau-Ting L., Mohammed A.H., 2015, Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation, “Ecological Indicators”, 48.
• 4. Antweiler W., Copeland B.R., Taylor M.S., 2001, Is free trade good for the environment? “American Economic Review”, 91(4).
• 5. Bernard J., Mandal S.K., 2016, The impact of trade openness on environmental quality: an empirical analysis of emerging and developing economies, “WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment”, 203.
• 6. Cetin M., Seker F., Cavlak H., 2015, The impact of trade openness on environmental pollution: A panel cointegration and causality analysis, [In:] Regional Economic Integration and the Global Financial System, (pp. 221-232), IGI Global.
• 7. Cole M.A., Elliott R.J., 2003, Determining the trade-environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor and environmental regulations, “Journal of Environmental Economics and Management”, 46(3).
• 8. Duong T., Hultberg P.T., 2018, Trade Openness, Economic Growth, and Environmental Degradation in Asian Developing Countries, “Journal of Applied Business and Economics”, 20(5).
• 9. Ertugrul H.M., Cetin M., Seker F., Dogan E., 2016, The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries, “Ecological Indicators”, 67.
• 10. Farhani S., Ozturk I., 2015, Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 22(20).
• 11. Florida R., Atlas M., Cline M., 2001, What makes companies green? Organizational and geographic factors in the adoption of environmental practices, “Economic Geography”, 77(3).
• 12. Han H., Hsu L.T.J., Lee J.S., 2009, Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process, “International Journal of Hospitality Management”, 28(4).
• 13. Hussain H.I., Grabara J., Razimi M.S.A., Sharif S.P., 2019, Sustainability of Leverage Levels in Response to Shocks in Equity Prices: Islamic Finance as a Socially Responsible Investment, “Sustainability”, 11(12).
• 14. Im K.S., Pesaran M.H., Shin Y., 2003, Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels, “Journal of Econometrics”, 115(1).
• 15. Kao C., Chiang M.H., 2001, On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data, [In:] Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, (pp. 179-222), Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• 16. Katircioglu S.T., 2009, Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration, “Tourism Management”, 30(1).
• 17. Kim D.H., Suen Y.B., Lin S.C., 2019, Carbon dioxide emissions and trade: Evidence from disaggregate trade data, “Energy Economics”, 78.
• 18. Le T.H., Chang Y., Park D., 2016, Trade openness and environmental quality: International evidence, “Energy Policy”, 92.
• 19. Levin A., Lin C.F., Chu C.S.J., 2002, Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties, “Journal of Econometrics”, 108(1).
• 20. Li Z., Xu N., Yuan J., 2015, New evidence on trade-environment linkage via air visibility, “Economics Letters”, 128.
• 21. Ling C.H., Ahmed K., Muhamad R.B., Shahbaz M., 2015, Decomposing the trade-environment nexus for Malaysia: what do the technique, scale, composition, and comparative advantage effect indicate? “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 22(24).
• 22. Managi S., 2004, Trade liberalization and the environment: carbon dioxide for 1960-1999, “Economics Bulletin”, 17(1).
• 23. Min H., Galle W.P., 2001, Green purchasing practices of US firms, “International Journal of Operations & Production Management”, 21(9).
• 24. Mrabet Z., Alsamara M., 2017, Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint, “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews”, 70.
• 25. Pedroni P., 2001a, Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels, [In:] Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, (pp. 93-130), Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• 26. Pedroni P., 2001b, Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels, “Review of Economics and Statistics”, 83(4).
• 27. Pedroni P., 2004, Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis, “Econometric Theory”, 20(3).
• 28. Perkins R., Neumayer E., 2012, Do recipient country characteristics affect international spillovers of CO2-efficiency via trade and foreign direct investment? “Climatic Change”, 112(2).
• 29. Saidi K., Mbarek M.B., 2017, The impact of income, trade, urbanization, and financial development on CO2 emissions in 19 emerging economies, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 24(14).
• 30. Sebri M., Ben-Salha O., 2014, On the causal dynamics between economic growth, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: Fresh evidence from BRICS countries, “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews”, 39.
• 31. Shahbaz M., Nasreen S., Ahmed K., Hammoudeh S., 2017, Trade openness-carbon emissions nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels, “Energy Economics”, 61.
• 32. Shahzad S.J.H., Kumar R.R., Zakaria M., Hurr M., 2017, Carbon emission, energy consumption, trade openness and financial development in Pakistan: A revisit, “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews”, 70.
• 33. Westerlund J., 2007, Testing for error correction in panel data, “Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics”, 69(6).
• 34. Woodhouse P., 2000, Environmental degradation and sustainability, “Poverty and Development into the 21st Century”, 141-162.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).