Abstract

The article summarizes the arguments within the scientific challenge on improving approaches to estimate the environmental impact of FDI inflow on the economy. The main objective of the research is to systematize the existing statistical approaches to analyze whether and how the macroeconomic determinants could impact the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emission. Systematization of theoretical and methodological materials on solving the problem of choice of applying more or less stringent environmental regulations with addition to more efficient industrial technologies which are supposed to have a positive impact on the environment. The relevance of solving this problem is that inceptive of FDI inflow could provide the economy with resources which reduce pollution, create better conditions for workers and local citizens. On the other hand, FDI are not interested in investing in economies with strict environmental legislation. The methodical tools of the research are carried out in the following logical sequence: systematization of existing statistical methods panel data analysis; analysis of data that will be used in the estimation model and in further country environmental policy making process; application of fixed and random effects models in estimation of the environmental impact of FDI on analyzed data. The research methods combine in following dimensions: comparative analysis, regression analysis. The period from 1999 to 2018 was chosen as the research period. The objects of the research are foreign direct investment net inflows into the Baltic-Black Sea region countries` economies and their impact on its environment. The article presents the results of empirical analysis, which showed that FDI inflow has an impact on the environment, but it is severely limited by other more significant determinants. The pollution haven hypothesis in the Baltic-Black Sea trans-national region countries policy in attraction FDI has not been proved considering more strict high-standard environmental legislation in EU countries alongside with increase in GHG emission per capita. The results of the research can be useful within government policy making processes considering the aim to incentivize FDI inflow.

Keywords: country investment potential, environment, foreign direct investment, greenhouse gas emission, national economy.

JEL Classification: E22, E29, E44, E60, G31.

Cite as: Đonlagić, A., Moskalenko, B.A. (2020). The Impact Of FDI Inflow On The Environment: A Case Of The Baltic-Black Sea Region Countries. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(4), 151-159. https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.4(4).151-159.2020

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Arellano M., Bover O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econom, 68(1), 29–51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D.
2. Baier S.L., Bergstrand J.H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? J Int Econ, 71(1), 72–95. DOI: 1016/j.jinteco.2006.02.005.
3. Baier S.L., Bergstrand J.H., Feng M. (2014). Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade. J Int Econ, 93(2), 339–350. Available at: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeinecon/v_3a93_3ay_3a2014_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a339-350.htm.
4. Blundell R., Bond S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom, 87(1), 115–143. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/Blundell-Bond-1998.pdf.
5. Bogdanova, O., & Makarychev, A. (Eds.). (2020). Baltic-Black Sea Regionalisms. doi: 1007/978-3-030-24878-9.
6. Cole M.A., Elliott R.J.R., & Zhang L.Y. (2017). Foreign direct investment and the environment. In A. Gadgil & T. P. Tomich (Eds.), Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, pp. 465-487. Available at: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060916.
7. Dunning, J. H. (2003). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: past, present and future International Business and the Eclectic Paradigm: Developing the OLI Framework (pp. 21-39). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13571510110051441.
8. Erdogan A.M. (2014). Foreign direct investment and environmental regulations: a survey. J Econ Surv 28(5):943–955. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12047.
9. Galbraith, James (2007). Global inequality and global macroeconomics. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29 (4), 587–607. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.454.8135. doi: 1016/j.jpolmod.2007.05.008.
10. Grossman, G. M.; Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 3914, NBER. doi: 3386/w3914.
11. He, J., & Richard, P. (2010). Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in Canada. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1083–1093. Available at: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecolec/v_3a69_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a1083-1093.htm.
12. Hille E. (2018). Pollution havens: international empirical evidence using a shadow price measure of climate policy stringency. Empir Econ 54(3):1137–1171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1244-3.
13. Kok R., Ersoy B.A. (2009). Analyses of FDI determinants in developing countries. Int J Soc Econ, 36(1-2), 105–123. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290910921226.
14. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631– doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631.
15. Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 405–430. doi: 1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348.
16. Our World in Data (2019). CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
17. Pazienza, P. (2015). The Environmental Impact of the FDI Inflow in the Transport Sector of OECD Countries and Policy Implications. International Advances in Economic Research, 21(1), 105–116. DOI: 1007/s11294-014-9511-y.
18. Porter G (1999) Trade competition and pollution standards: ‘race to the bottom’ or ‘stuck at the bottom’? J Environ Dev, 8(2), 133–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107049659900800203.
19. Rezza AA (2015) A meta-analysis of FDI and environmental regulations. Environ Dev Econ, 20(2), 185–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x14000114.
20. Shahbaz M., Nasreen S., Afza T. (2011). Environmental consequences of economic growth and foreign direct investment: evidence from panel data analysis, MPRA Paper, no. 32547. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32547/ last accessed 18th March 2013.
21. Stern, D. I. (2004a). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439. Available at: http://www.sterndavidi.com/publications_type.html.
22. Stern, D. I. (2004b). Environmental Kuznets curve. In C. J. Cleveland (Ed.), Encyclopedia of energy (Vol. 2, pp. 517–525). San Diego: Academic. Available at: http://www.sterndavidi.com/publications_type.html.
23. Taylor J (1999) Japan’s global environmentalism: rhetoric and reality. Polit Geogr, 18(5), 535–562. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(98)00112-7.
24. Wagner U.J., Timmins C.D. (2009) Agglomeration effects in foreign direct investment and the pollution haven hypothesis. Resour.Econ., 43(2), 231–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9236-6.
25. Wooldridge, J. M. (2000). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press Liang F.H. (2008). Does foreign direct investment harm the host country’s environment? Evidence from China, social science research network (SSRN) research paper no. 1479864, pp. 1–29. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1479864 last accessed 14th December 2013.
26. World Bank (2019). World Development Indicators 2018. World Bank. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator.
27. Yaguchi, Y., Sonobe, T., & Otsuka, K. (2007). Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve: a comparative study of SO2 and CO2 emissions between Japan and China. Environment and Development Economics, 12(3), 445–470. DOI: 1017/S1355770X07003592.