An Empirical Examination of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis for India: Towards a Green Leontief Paradox?

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Responsibility and trade emission balances: An evaluation of approaches (2010, background): “…al., 1998), Denmark (Munksgaard and Perdersen, 2001), Brazil (Machado et al., 2001; Tolmasquim and Machado, 2003), Spain (Sánchez-Chóliz and Duarte, 2004), Italy (Mongelli et al., 2006), India (Mukhopadhyay and Chakrabory, 2005; Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay, 2007), and Turkey (Tunç et al., 2007).”
Review of existing literature (2014, background): “…apparently arise from an acceleration of investment and an increase in the rate of adoption of new technologies that an export-oriented strategy seems to bring about (Lopez 1994; Mani and Wheeler 1997; Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay 2007; Mani and Jha 2006; Balassa 1982; Kavossi 1984; Ram 1985).”
Impact of inter-sectoral trade on national and global CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis of China and US (2010, background): “satisfy the domestic consumption of those goods and in the medium-long run to relegating choice by firms, the so-called Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) (Cole, 2004; Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay, 2007).”
Does Globalization Impede Environmental Quality in India (2015, background): “The studies by Bhattacharyya and Ghoshal (2009), Khanna and Zilberman (2001) support the EKC hypothesis; whereas Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay (2007), Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty (2005) have rejected the EKC hypothesis.”