Effects of economic, social, and political globalization on environmental quality: international evidence

Le, Ha-Chi; Le, Thai‐Ha

doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02243-4

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cole (2004) compares pollutant emissions from developing and developed countries and finds an inverse relationship between emissions of 10 air and water pollutants and the rise of imports of environmental damaging goods from developing countries. In line with this result, Yu et al (2022) and Le and Le (2022) b EP influences the international activity of companies.…”

Section: Pollution Haven Hypothesissupporting

confidence: 71%

“…(IC): Eskeland & Harrison, 2003; Cole, 2004; Mullen et al, 2009; Li & Wang, 2014; Shahbaz et al, 2015; Le et al, 2016; Yue et al, 2016; Mao & He, 2017; Chang & Chang, 2020; Fathi et al, 2021; Soylu et al, 2021; Khan, Khan, et al, 2022; Khan, Lei, et al, 2022; Le & Le, 2022; Trinh et al, 2022; Yu et al, 2022…”

Section: Results and Discussion: Theoretical Analysis And Interrelati...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mullen et al (2009) conclude that while international trade increases CO 2 emission levels, exporting has a positive effect on the EPI. The results of Alhassan et al (2020) and Le and Le (2022) indicate that the effects of EPI vary across income groups.…”

Section: Ep Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…;Yue et al, 2016;Mao & He, 2017;Chang & Chang, 2020;Fathi et al, 2021;Soylu et al, 2021;Khan, Lei, et al, 2022;Le & Le, 2022;Trinh et al, 2022;Yu et al, 2022Antweiler et al, 2001Taskin & Zaim, 2001;Dean, 2002;Managi et al, 2009;Shahbaz et al, 2013;Jiang, 2015;Gozgor & Can, 2016;Duman & Kasman, 2017;Destek et al, 2018;Hasanov et al, 2018;Liu, Kim, et al, 2018;Alola et al, 2019;Ponce & Alvarado, 2019;Rahman et al, 2019;Murshed, 2020; Ngoc-Tham et al, 2020 (À): Cole, 2006;Al-mulali & Sheau-Ting, 2014;;Rahman, 2017; …”

unclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interrelationship between international trade and environmental performance: Theoretical approaches and indicators for sustainable development

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, a great deal of research has analyzed the impact of trade openness on the environment, with the aim of determining whether internationalization contributes to the improvement of environmental performance (EP) or, on the contrary, hinders the achievement of sustainable development. The objective of the present work is to conduct a systematic literature review on the interrelationship between international trade and EP at the micro‐ and macroeconomic levels, analyzing the existent theoretical approaches and the EP indicators utilized in practice. The most prominent theories found are firm heterogeneity, at a microeconomic level, and the pollution haven/halo hypotheses, at a macroeconomic level. Also, the EP indicators have been classified according to five dimensions: energy consumption, resource consumption, emissions, risk potential, and toxic potential, of which pollutant gas emissions and energy consumption are the most used. The results obtained show evidence of the interrelationship mentioned from the perspective of the different theories. In addition, this analysis helps to identify several gaps in this line of study.

show abstract

Section: Pollution Haven Hypothesissupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Results and Discussion: Theoretical Analysis And Interrelati...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ep Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 94%

unclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interrelationship between international trade and environmental performance: Theoretical approaches and indicators for sustainable development

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence from the study revealed that globalization aggravates CO2 emissions in developing countries but mitigates CO2 emissions in developed countries. Similarly, Le and Le [ 54 ] analyzed the nexus between globalization and environmental degradation in 128 countries (divided into high-, middle-, and low-income countries) and reported that overall, economic, and social globalization mitigate environmental degradation while political globalization worsens it in the whole panel. It further showed that overall, economic, and social globalization mitigate environmental degradation in middle income countries but aggravate it in low-income countries.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industrialization, globalization, ICT, and environmental degradation in Malaysia: A frequency domain analysis

Ehigiamusoe,

Lean,

Mustapha

et al. 2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information and communication technology, economic globalization, and environmental sustainability inAPECnations: Insights fromLCCandEKChypotheses testing

Ximei,

Javaid,

Shams

et al. 2024

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the world grapples with pressing ecological issues, this study delves into the essential concept of environmental sustainability, following the sustainable development goal (SDG) 13, aiming to uncover pathways for a greener future. For this, the study examines the effects of information & communication technology (ICT) and economic globalization (ECG) on environmental sustainability (ENS) from a new angle, focusing on three ENS proxy variables; carbon dioxide emission (CO2e), ecological footprint (EFP), and load capacity factor (LCF), for better ecological assessment. Dissimilar to prior studies, the current study simultaneously tests the load capacity curve (LCC) and environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypotheses. The study employed advanced panel data estimation techniques along with causality tests, taking into account cross‐sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity for Asia‐Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies, for the period 1991–2020. The long‐run empirical outcomes reveal that information & communication technology, economic globalization, renewable energy consumption, and green financial development have the potential to enhance environmental sustainability; whereas industrialization has a detrimental influence over time. Further, the LCC and EKC hypotheses are supportable in APEC economies. Considering the overall findings there is a need for a favorable policy environment, that is APEC nations should bolster up the deployment of green ICT infrastructure; promote enhanced and collective efforts with global partners for ECG; expand the adoption of renewable energy; direct green financial development to areas of greatest benefit, and well‐managed industrialization as part of their environmental policies.

show abstract

Effects of economic, social, and political globalization on environmental quality: international evidence

Cited by 15 publications

References 104 publications

Interrelationship between international trade and environmental performance: Theoretical approaches and indicators for sustainable development

Interrelationship between international trade and environmental performance: Theoretical approaches and indicators for sustainable development

Industrialization, globalization, ICT, and environmental degradation in Malaysia: A frequency domain analysis

Information and communication technology, economic globalization, and environmental sustainability inAPECnations: Insights fromLCCandEKChypotheses testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About