Abstract
This study intends to explore India’s comparative advantage in the pollution-intensive product export with temporal and spatial analysis by applying an alternative measure of revealed comparative advantage index. The emission-intensive manufacturing commodities are mainly chosen as per the list published by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of India to draw some inferences on India’s pollution haven characteristics. For the spatial analysis, the ‘dirty’ comparative advantage is calculated for all the BRICS countries for the year 2017, and for the temporal analysis, the index value is calculated for 42 product groups at 3 digit SITC level from 2009 to 2017 to examine the structure of ‘dirty’ specialisation in India and its change over time. India is found at the top among the BRICS members for a maximum of 16 in 25 products. Among these 25 sectors, Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa are found having a comparative advantage in 4, 12, 11 and 10 products, respectively. In these comparatively advantageous products, Brazil ranked one in 75% and three in 25% of products. Russia ranked one in 33% and two in 67% of products. India among the BRICS members stood 1st at 62.5, 2nd and 3rd both at 18.75% cases, respectively. Findings reveal that pollution-intensive trade-exposed sectors successfully absorbed the stringent environmental regulation-shocks which brought in an additional burden of compliance cost upon trade competitiveness. The results of this study are more insightful for evaluating India’s recent initiatives for stricter environmental regulations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
CDM arranges a market-based system of transferring emission credits to the countries which offer verified reductions in emissions. Mostly, the industrialised and developed countries buy these credits from the develo** countries to accomplish their Kyoto Protocol committed targets.
The detailed results are shown in Appendix Table 6.
See Appendix Table 7 which exhibits the calculated values of the sectoral RSCA of the ‘dirty’ sectors for the entire period of 2009–2017.
The original Kuznet’s inverted U curve shows the relationship between income inequality and development, and resembled in Grossman and Krueger (1995) in their analysis of trade and environmental economics.
References
Amoroso N, Chiquiar D, Ramos-Francia M (2011) Technology and endowments as determinants of comparative advantage: evidence from Mexico. North Am J Econ Finance 22(2):164–196
Andhale A, Elumalai K (2015) Analysis of India’s revealed comparative advantage in agro-processed products. Ind J of Econ and Bus 14(1):115–130
Apergis N, Can M, Gozgor G, Lau CKM (2018) Effects of export concentration on CO2 emissions in developed countries: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(14):14106–14116
Arouri MH, Ben Youssef AB, M’henni H, Rault C (2012) Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy Policy 45:342–349
Arto I, García-Muros X, Cazcarro I, González-Eguino M, Markandya A, Hazra S (2019) The socioeconomic future of deltas in a changing environment. Sci Total Envion 648:1284–1296
Balance RH, Forstner H, Murray T (1987) Consistency tests of alternative measures of comparative advantage. Rev Econ Stat 69:157–161
Balassa B (1965) Trade liberalisation and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies 33:99–123
Banerjee S (2019) Addressing the drivers of carbon emissions embodied in Indian exports: an index decomposition analysis. Foreign Trade Rev 54(4):300–330
Banerjee S (2020a) Carbon emissions embodied in India-United Kingdom trade: a case study on north-south debate. Foreign Trade Rev 55(2):199–215
Banerjee S (2020b) Addressing the carbon emissions embodied in India’s bilateral trade with two eminent annex-II parties: with input-output and spatial decomposition analysis. Environ Dev Sust. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00824-9
Banerjee S (2021a) Carbon adjustment in a consumption-based emission inventory accounting: a CGE analysis and implications for a develo** country. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11771-3
Banerjee S (2021b) Conjugation of Border and Domestic Carbon Adjustment and Implications under Production and Consumption-based Accounting of India's National Emission Inventory: A Recursive Dynamic CGE Analysis. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.01.007
Banerjee S, Murshed M (2020) Do emissions implied in net export validate the pollution haven conjecture? Analysis of G7 and BRICS countries. Int J Sust Econ 12(3):297–319
Bender S, Li, KW (2002) The Changing Trade and Revealed Comparative Advantages of Asian and Latin American Manufacture Exports. Discussion Paper No. 843, Economic Growth Center, New Haven, Yale University. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=303259
Boughanmi H, Khan MA (2019) Welfare and distributional effects of the energy subsidy reform in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: the case of Sultanate of Oman. Int J Energy Econ Policy 9(1):228
Burange LG, Chaddha S (2008) India’s revealed comparative advantage in merchandise trade. Artha Vijnana L(4):332–363 Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280727251_India’s_Revealed_Comparative_Advantage_in_Merchandise_Trade
Cairncross, A.K. (2011). Factors in Economic Development (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838549
Can M, Dogan B, Saboori B (2020) Does trade matter for environmental degradation in develo** countries? New evidence in the context of export product diversification. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–9
Cazcarro I, Arto I, Hazra S, Bhattacharya RN, Osei-Wusu Adjei P, Ofori-Danson PK et al (2018) Biophysical and socioeconomic state and links of deltaic areas vulnerable to climate change: Volta (Ghana), Mahanadi (India) and Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (India and Bangladesh). Sustainability 10(3):893
Dalum BK, Laursen K, Villumsen G (1998) Structural change in OECD export specialization patterns: de-specialization and ‘stickiness. Int Rev Appl Econ 12:447–467
Dogan E, Seker F (2016) The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renew Sust Energy Rev 60:1074–1085
Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1203–1213
Dogan E, Seker F, Bulbul S (2017) Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Curr Issue Tour 20(16):1701–1719
Dogan B, Madaleno M, Tiwari AK, Hammoudeh S (2020) Impacts of export quality on environmental degradation: does income matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–38
Ekholm K, Södersten B (2002) Growth and trade vs. trade and growth. Small Bus Econ 19:147–162
Fan J, Dong Y, Zhang X (2020) How does the “belt and road” and the Sino-US trade conflict affect global and Chinese CO2 emissions? Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:38715–38731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09935-2
Ferto I, Hubbard LJ (2002) Revealed comparative advantage and competitiveness in Hungarian Agri-food sectors. The World Economy 26(2):247–259.
Gozgor G, Can M (2016) Effects of the product diversification of exports on income at different stages of economic development. Eurasian Bus Rev 6(2):215–235
Grether JM, de Melo J (2003) Globalization and dirty industries: do pollution havens matter? Working paper 9776. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge
Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2):353–377. Retrieved February 11, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118443
Gupta S (2003) India, CDM and Kyoto Protocol. Econ Polit Wkly 38(41):4292–4298. , from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4414124
Haider A, Bashir A, Husnain MI (2020) Impact of agricultural land use and economic growth on nitrous oxide emissions: evidence from developed and develo** countries. Science of the Total Environment:140421
Hinloopen J (2003) Innovation performance across Europe. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12(2):145–61
Husnain MI, Haider A, Khan MA (2020) Does the environmental Kuznets curve reliably explain a developmental issue? Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11402-x
Jagadambe S (2016) Analysis of revealed comparative advantage in export of India’s agricultural products. Working Paper 372. The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore
Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y (2012) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy 42:450–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.010
Kanjilal K, Ghosh S (2013) Environmental Kuznet’s curve for India: evidence from tests for cointegration with unknown structural breaks. Energy Policy 56:509–515
Khan MA, Tahir A, Khurshid N, Husnain MI, Ahmed M, Boughanmi H (2020) Economic effects of climate change-induced loss of agricultural production by 2050: a case study of Pakistan. Sustainability. 12(3):1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031216
Lall S, Albaladejo, M (2004) China's competitive performance: a threat to East Asian manufactured exports? World Development 32 (9):1441–1466
Lall S, Weiss J, Oikawa H (2005) China's Competitive Threat to Latin America: An Analysis for 1990–2002. Oxford Development Studies 33(2):163- 194, DOI: 10.1080/13600810500137764
Laursen K (2015) Revealed comparative advantage and the alternatives as measures of international specialization. Eurasian Business Review 5:99–115
Leromain E, Orefice G (2014) New revealed comparative advantage index: dataset and empirical distribution. Int Econ 139:48–70
Low P, Yeats AJ (1992) Do dirty industries migrate? In: Low P (ed) International Trade and the Environment. Discussion Paper 159. The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Mani M, Wheeler D (1999) In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy. In: Fredriksson, P.G. (Ed.) Trade, Global Policy, and the Environment. World Bank Discussion Paper No.402, 115-128
Marconi D (2012) Environmental regulation and revealed comparative advantages in Europe: is China a pollution haven? Rev Int Econ 20(3):616–635
Murshed M, Mahmood H, Alkhateeb TTY, Banerjee S (2020a) Calibrating the impacts of regional trade integration and renewable energy transition on the sustainability of international inbound tourism demand in South Asia. Sustainability 12(20):8341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208341
Murshed M, Ali SR, Banerjee S (2020b) Consumption of liquefied petroleum gas and the EKC hypothesis in South Asia: evidence from cross-sectionally dependent heterogeneous panel data with structural breaks. Energ Ecol Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00185-z
National Electricity Plan (2018). National Electricity Plan 2018, Volume I, 2018, Government of India, Ministry of Power. Retrieved from Web: https://www.cea.nic.in/reports/committee/nep/nep_jan_2018.pdf
Nyahoho E (2010) Determinants of comparative advantage in the international trade of services: an empirical study of the Hecksher-Ohlin approach. Global Econ J 10(1):1–22
Parappurathu S, Mathur VC (2008) Comparative advantage of India in agricultural exports vis-à-vis Asia: a post-reform analysis. Agri Econ Res Rev 21:60–66
Parikh J, Parikh K (2004) The Kyoto protocol: an Indian perspective. Int Rev Environ Strategies 5(1):127–144
Rafindadi AA (2016) Revisiting the concept of environmental Kuznets curve in period of energy disaster and deteriorating income: empirical evidence from Japan. Energy Policy 94:274–284
Riedel J (1984) Trade as the engine of growth in develo** countries, revisited. Econ J 94(373):56–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232215
Riedel J (1988) The demand for LDC exports of manufacturers: estimates from Hong Kong. Econ J 98(389):138–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233515
Rodrik D (2006) What’s so special about China’s export? Chin World Econ 14(5):1–19
Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Ozturk I (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and the role of globalization in selected African countries. Ecol Indic 67:623–636
Shahbaz M, Haouas I, Sohag K, Ozturk I (2020) The financial development-environmental degradation nexus in the United Arab Emirates: the importance of growth, globalization and structural breaks. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–15
Sharma SS (2011) Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence from 69 countries. Appl Energy 88(1):376–382
Siggel E (2006) International competitiveness and comparative advantage: a survey and a proposal for measurement. J Ind Compet Trade 6(2):137–159
Sinha A, Bhattacharya J (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve estimation for NO2emission:a case of Indian cities. Ecol Indic 67:1–11
Topalova P, Khandelwal A (2011) Trade liberalization and firm productivity: the case of India. Rev Econ Stat 93(3):995–1009
Unel B (2003) Productivity trends in India’s manufacturing sectors in the last two decades. IMF working paper WP/03/22 Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/wp0322.pdf
Vollrath T (1991) A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of revealed comparative advantage. Rev World Econ 127:265–280
Weiss J (2004) People’s Republic of China and its neighbors: partners or competitors for trade and investment?. Asian Development Bank Institute, Discussion Paper No. 59, Asian Development Bank, Tokyo, Japan.
World Development Report (1992) Development and the Environment, World Bank. New York: Oxford University Press.
World Energy Outlook (2015) India energy outlook, part-B, Chapter 11. International Energy Agency, Paris
Autho’r contribution
Conceptualisation - Suvajit Banerjee; introduction - Suvajit Banerjee and Muhammad Iftikhar ul Husnain; data curation - Suvajit Banerjee and Muhammad Aamir Khan; methodology - Suvajit Banerjee; results and discussion - Suvajit Banerjee, Muhammad Aamir Khan, Somnath Hazra; writing—original draft preparation - Suvajit Banerjee; writing—review and editing - Somnath Hazra, Muhammad Aamir Khan, Muhammad Iftikhar ul Husnain.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Nicholas Apergis
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Banerjee, S., Hazra, S., Khan, M.A. et al. Investigating India’s pollution-intensive ‘dirty’ trade specialisation: analysis with ‘revealed symmetric comparative advantage’ index. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 30153–30167 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12790-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12790-4