Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:05:52.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Les facteurs de la dépollution dans les pays en transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Natalia Zugravu ,
Katrin Millock  and
Gérard Duchene
Natalia Zugravu
Affiliation:
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Maison des Sciences Economiques, 106/112 Bd. de l'Hôpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13, France, E-mail: [email protected]
Katrin Millock
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics, CNRS, Centre d'Economic de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 106/112 Bd. de l'Hôpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13, France, E-mail: [email protected]
Gérard Duchene
Affiliation:
ERUDITE, Université Pans 12, 61, avenue du Général de Gaulle, 94010 Créteil Cedex, France, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Résumé

Les pays en transition ont considérablement réduit leurs émissions de CO2 entre 1995 et 2003. Cette performance est-elle due à l'application d'une politique volontariste de la part des gouvernements, ou bien est-elle un simple effet collatéral de la transformation industrielle majeure subie par ces pays ? Nous tentons de répondre à cette question en développant deux équations structurelles pour la demande (émissions) et l'offre (politique) de pollution. L'équation de l'offre prend en compte la qualité institutionnelle du pays, aussi bien que les préférences des consommateurs pour la qualité de l'environnement. Nos résultats montrent que, toutes choses égales par ailleurs, l'effet d'échelle de la production seul aurait expliqué une augmentation de 31 % des émissions industrielles de CO2 dans les pays en transition entre 1995 et 2003, et l'effet de structure de la production aurait contribué à une augmentation de 8,4 % de ces émissions. Cependant, l'effet technique, qui découle de la sévérité de la politique environnementale, s'est traduit par une réduction de 58 % des émissions industrielles de CO2, et a permis ainsi une réduction nette des émissions industrielles de CO2 de 18 % en 2003 par rapport à 1995. Enfin, notre étude confirme l'importance des facteurs institutionnels dans l'explication des émissions dans les pays en transition.

Summary

Summary

The Central and Eastern European countries significantly reduced their CO2 emissions between 1995 and 2003. Was this emission reduction just the fortuitous result of the major economic transformation undergone by countries in transition? Or is it rather a result of more stringent environmental policy? The objective of the article is to answer this question through a simultaneous equation model of the demand (emissions) and supply (environmental stringency) of pollution. The supply equation takes into account the institutional quality of the country as well as consumer preferences for environmental quality. The results indicate that, all else equal, output growth would have increased CO2 industrial emissions in the Central and Eastern European countries in our sample by 31% between 1995 and 2003, and the composition effect corresponded to an increase of 8.4% of these emissions. Nevertheless, the technique effect, induced by more stringent environmental policy, reduced industrial CO2 emissions by 58%, and allowed for a final beneficial result for the nvironment, i.e., -18% of industrial CO2 emissions in 2003 compared to 1995. Finally, our study confirms the importance of institutional factors in the explanation and further prediction of pollution reduction in transition economies.

Keywords

transitionémissions CO2effet d'échellede composition et techniqueC33P5Q58TransitionCO2 emissionsenvironmental policyscalecomposition and technique effectsC33P5Q58
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 461 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Alesina, A. et Perotti, R. (1996). Income Distribution, Political Instability, and Investment, European Economic Review, vol. 40, n°6, pp. 1203–1228.Google Scholar
Alesina, A., Özler, S., Roubini, S. et Swagel, P. (1996). “Political Instability and Economie Growth”, Journal of Economie Growth, vol. 1, n°2, pp. 189–211.Google Scholar
Antweiler, W., Copeland, B.R. et Taylor, M.S. (2001). “Is Free Trade Good for the Environment?” American Economic Review, vol. 91, n°4, pp. 877–908.Google Scholar
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.O., Levin, S., Máler, K.G., Perrings, C. et Pimentel, D. (1995). “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment”, Science 268 (April 28), pp. 520–521.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B.D. et Whinston, M.D. (1986). “Common Agency”, Econometrica, vol. 54, n°4, pp. 923 942.Google Scholar
Bimonte, S. (2001). “Model of Growth and Environmental Quality: A New Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica, n°321, Università degli Studi di Siena.Google Scholar
Bluffstone, R.A. (2006). “After a Dozen Years of Transition, Why are Dirty Industries in Central and Eastern Europe Generally Greener? PHASE 1”, A Report to the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and the University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Bradford, D., Schlieckert, R. et Shore, S. (2000). “The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification”, NBER Working Paper, n°8001.Google Scholar
Cagatay, S. et Mihci, H. (2003). “Industrial Pollution, Environmental Suffering and Policy Measures: An Index of Environmental Sensitivity Performance (IESP)”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, vol. 5, n°2, pp. 205–245.Google Scholar
Cole, M.A., Elliott, R. et Fredriksson, P.G. (2006). “Endogenous Pollution Havens: Does FDI Influence Environmental Regulations?” Scandinavian Journal of Economies, vol. 108, n°l, pp. 157–178.Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R. et Taylor, M.S. (2001). “International Trade and the Environment: A Framework for Analysis”, NBER Working Paper, n°8540.Google Scholar
Copeland, B.R. et Taylor, M.S. (2004). “Trade, Growth and the Environment”. Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 42, n°l, pp. 7–71.Google Scholar
Damania, R., Fredriksson, P.G. et List, J. (2003). “Trade Liberalization, Corruption, and Environmental Policy Formation: Theory and Evidence”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 46, n°3, pp. 490–512.Google Scholar
Damania, R., Fredriksson, P.G. et List, J. (2004). “The Multiplier Effect of Globalization”, Economics Letters, vol. 83, n°3, pp. 285–92.Google Scholar
Damania, R., Fredriksson, P.G. et Mani, M. (2004). “The Persistence of Corruption and Regulatory Compliance Failures”, Public Choice, vol. 121, n°3, pp. 363–390.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S., Mody, A., Roy, S. et Wheeler, D. (1995). “Environmental Regulation and Development: A Cross-Country Empirical Analysis”, Policy Research Working Paper, n°1448, Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
Dean, J. (1992). “Trade and the Environment: A Survey of the Literature”, in Patrick, Low (ed.), International Trade and the Environment, World Bank Discussion Paper, n°159.Google Scholar
Dean, J. (2002). “Does Trade Liberalization Harm the Environment? A New Test”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 35, n°4, pp. 819–842.Google Scholar
Dixit, J., Grossman, G. et Helpman, E. (1997). “Common Agency and Coordination: General Theory and Application to Government Policymaking”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 105, n°4, pp. 753–769.Google Scholar
Eiras, A. et Schaefer, B. (2001). “Trade: The Best Way to Protect the Environment”, The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1480, September 27.Google Scholar
Eliste, P. et Fredriksson, P.G. (2002). “Environmental Regulations, Transfers, and Trade: Theory and Evidence”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 43, n°2, pp. 234–250.Google Scholar
Frankel, J.A. et Rose, A.K. (2005). “Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting out the Causality”, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 87, n°l, pp. 85–91.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G. et Svensson, J. (2003). “Political Instability, Corruption and Policy Formation: The Case of Environmental Policy”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 87, n°7–8, pp. 1383–1405.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G., Neumayer, E., Damania, R. et Gates, S. (2005). “Environ-mentalism, Democracy, and Pollution Control”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 49, n°2, pp. 343–365.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. et Helpman, E. (1994). “Protection for Sale”, American Economie Review, vol. 84, n°4, pp. 833–850.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. et Krueger, A.B. (1993). “Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement”, in Garber, P.M. (ed.), The Mexico-US Free Trade Agreement, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. et Krueger, A.B. (1995). “Economic Growth and the Environment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110, n°2, pp. 353–377.Google Scholar
Harbaugh, W., Levinson, A. et Wilson, D. (2000). “Re-examining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve”, NBER Working Paper n°7711.Google Scholar
Hilton, F.G.H. et Levinson, A. (1998). “Factoring the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from Automotive Lead Emissions”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 35, pp.126–141.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. et Mastruzzi, M. (2005). “Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996–2004”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper n°3630.Google Scholar
Lopez, R. et Mitra, S. (2000). “Corruption, Pollution and the Kuznets Environment Curve”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 40, n°2, pp. 137–150.Google Scholar
Lucas, R., Wheeler, D. et Hettige, H. (1992). “Economic Development, Environmental Regulation, and the International Migration of Toxic Industrial Pollution, 1960–1988”, in Low, Patrick (ed.), International Trade and the Environment, Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pelligrini, L. et Gerlagh, R. (2005). “An Empirical Contribution to the Debate on Corruption, Democracy and Environmental Policy”, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper 2005.8. Google Scholar
Selden, T. et Song, D. (1994). “Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Environmental Management, vol. 27, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
Söderholm, P. (2001). “Environmental Policy in Transition Economies: Will Pollution Charges Work?” Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 10, n°4, pp. 365–390.Google Scholar
Svensson, J. (1998). “Investment, Property Rights and Political Instability: Theory and Evidence”, European Economic Review, vol. 42, pp. 1317–1341.Google Scholar
Welsch, H. (2003). “Corruption, Growth and the Environment: A Crosscountry Analysis”, German Institute for Economic Research, Discussion Paper n°357, Berlin.Google Scholar