Does trade openness affect environment

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES HO CHI MINH CITY THE HAGUE VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM - NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS DOES TRADE OPENNESS AFFECT ENVIRONMENT? BY NGUYEN THI THUY THANH MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY, JANUARY 2013 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES HO CHI MINH CITY THE HAGUE VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM - NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS DOES TRADE OPENNESS AFFECT ENVIRONMENT? A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS By NGUYEN THI THUY THANH Academic Supervisor: Dr NGUYEN HUU DUNG ABSTRACT This paper tries to find out the relationship between the openness to trade and the environment It is raised a question that whether the more openness to trade the countries do, the more degraded quality of environment became Besides trade intensity that possible affects environment, there are some other variables might take part into effect on environment like GDP per capita, Polity, Urbanization, Land, Population, Haven which is the interaction of Openness to trade and GDP per capita Data of pollutants such as carbon dioxide emissions and organic water pollutant emissions were collected The data of carbon dioxide emissions, trade intensity, GDP per capita, polity, urbanization, land, population are collected of one hundred and fifty countries from 1960 to 2008 while data of organic water pollutant emissions and same above variables are collected of seventy eight countries from 1960 to 2008 Because the data is not balanced from country to country then unbalanced panel data will be used for testing Moreover, using the Hausman-test to test that these panel data is significant with random effect model The result finally shows that there is a positive relationship between the openness to trade and the environment pollutions provided that other variables to be held ceteris-paribus Key words: Openness to trade, environment, trade barriers, pollution emissions ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARIES AFTA : Asian Free Trade Agreement BOD : Organic pollution emissions BTA : Bilateral Trade Agreement CAFTA : China-Asian Free Trade Agreement CO2 : Carbon dioxide emissions FTA : Free Trade Agreement GDP : Gross Domestic Product GLS : General Least Square GSO : General Statistics Office of Viet Nam HO theory : Huckster-Ohlin theory Nox : Nitrogen Oxides OLS : Ordinary Least Square PHH : Pollution Havens Hypothesis PPM : The processing and product manufacturing method according to the environment SO2 : Sulfur Dioxide US : United States WTO : World-Trade-Organization Introduction Viet Nam in this stage has a very quick interaction After the Party Congress in 2001, Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) with the United States in 2001, Viet Nam joined the World Trade Organization in 2006, Free Trade Agreement in 2008, joined China-Asian Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2010 suggests that Viet Nam’s policies entered very quickly over a period of less than ten years from 2001 to 2010 Also the priority policies specially develop on a width and depth However, according to World Bank and General Statistics Office of Viet Nam (GSO), Vietnam's GDP per capita in 2011 was USD1,407.11, in 2012 was USD1,540USD And especially with context is a poor country with a low GDP per capita, trade will help the GDP per capita increase and attract foreign investment, but it may become the place of production of not friendly environment goods Besides, the Vietnamese environment recently has been raised severely degraded:  Pollution of the water environment  Air Pollution  Soil pollution Since then whether or not the extensive integration affects the environment of Vietnam From this we can make appropriate policies for the integration in the future Since then we would have suggestions for making trade policy conditions, thereby towards a more sustainable development model That is hypothesized that the relationship between trade and environment in Viet Nam and this subject is rarely deeply discussed in Viet Nam since then it should be studied Besides, there is seriously attention on the degradation of environment when trading each other in over the world So whether trade openness affects the quality of environment? Is there an interaction among development, trade openness and environment? Basing on theory of comparative advantage of Ricardo and model of Huckster–Ohlin who predicts that trade pattern and production of countries based on their factor endowments The HO theory advises that there are comparative cost differences in production when a country has comparative advantage in production of a commodity and they use more abundant factor Hence, poor and developing countries tend to produce pollution-intensive products with low price whereas rich and developed countries prevent it as of high cost Rich and developed countries try to produce clean products because of high demand of clean environment and strictly environment policies which are applied to reduce environment degradation It is technical barriers to trade is applied in order to certify that regulations, testing, standardization and procedures not make unnecessary hurdles, whereas also give members the authorization to implement taking measurement to obtain the protection of human health, safety, and the environment; corruption in government should be eliminated to prevent distortion of environment regulations Besides, PHH which explains “Under free trade, multinational firms will relocate the production of their pollution-intensive goods to developing countries, taking advantage of the low environment monitoring in these countries Then developing countries will develop a comparative advantage in pollution-intensive industries and become “havens” for the world’s polluting industries Thus developed countries are expected to benefit in terms of environmental quality from trade, whereas developing countries will lose (Field (1994) and Liddle (2001)) From this, to analyze the relationship between trade openness and environment, data of pollutants such as organic water pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions as dependent variables and data of independent variables such as GDP per capita, Trade, Polity, Urbanization, Land, Population from 1960 to 2008 will be taken The carbon dioxide emissions model will take the data of around one hundred and fifty countries while it is seventy eight countries for organic water pollutant emissions model It is a panel data, and the impacts to every country are different then the variance of error term is not constant so GLS regression will be applied to measure how openness to trade affects environment and how different of damaged environment from poor countries to rich countries, from democratic countries to autocratic ones Knowing that openness to trade is very important for the growth of economy but the degradation of environment makes seriously problem to citizen’s health and cost of government Then this research project is to find out what effects on the positive and negative side then policy makers will figure out the solution for problems stated The aim objective of this study is to certify that the more of trade openness the countries do, the more degraded the environment become and to conclude that its degradation differs from poor countries to rich ones, from democratic countries to autocratic ones The research tried to address the following questions : (i) What is the relationship between trade openness and the environment? (ii) Does trade openness reduce the quality of environment? Model 2.1 Theoretical literature Why there is a relationship between environment and trade? And how we proof the Pollution Haven Hypothesis which is viewed as a result of HeckscherOhlin theory which was researched by Leontief (1953) and Leontief (1956) to be true? We should observe things have been happening in the world especially in trade liberalization and result of it into the environment So when we know the relationship between environment and trade, we can explain easily the Pollution Haven Hypothesis which affirmed that with trade liberalization, multinational corporations tend to relocate their production of pollution goods to developing countries where have low monitoring on environment Increasingly, taking a comparative advantage in industries of pollution-intensive goods, poor and developing countries will appeal to a lot of firms and become worse due to polluting industries And thus with free trade, developed countries are getting benefit while developing countries lose in terms of environmental quality Field, B.C (1994) and Liddle, B (2001) It is obviously that the cost to pay for environment’s clean is very high in developed countries which government can’t cover for Moreover, developed countries pay serious attention on clean environment that force firms to be high responsible for any mistake or production which harms the environment Inversely with the poor and developing countries It represents obviously in foreign direct investment and taking an example in Viet Nam According to new figures announced by the Foreign Investment Agency, up to 20th February, 2012, there were 65 new projects granted investment certificates with a total registered capital of U.S $ 910 million and 25 projects to increase capital with a capital increase of U.S $ 320 million Survey data shows that most foreign direct investment(FDI) is for export production Even if sold in the domestic market, their main customers as well as individuals are foreign enterprises That explains why production moves from rich countries to poor countries, from developed countries to developing countries Moreover, many old technologies to be imported into poor and developing countries for small production that we call “countries import rubbish” It is also found that exports increase as the pollutants of the industries increases, giving some proofs for the Pollution Haven Hypothesis Cary, William L (1974) argued that a race to bottom is environmental policy is lowered in an attempt to attract mobile firms, capital or investment ect A race to bottom only occurs in countries which their politics is poor An example of a race to bottom has occurred in Viet Nam, the studies said that the way to bring consistency of Vietnam is focused on economic growth, environmental protection, social security, many strategic plans are issued However, given the right policy perspective, but done little, policies inconsistent, sometimes limited, leading to increasing environmental pollution It is also same as many poor and developing countries 2.2 Empirical studies Recently, there has been an increasing amount of empirical works on trade openness and environment The recent works within ten years from now and earlier to be reviewed in order to show that the relationship of trade and environment is reality and nowadays many people pay attention seriously on it Many historians have argued that there is an interaction between environment and trade Copeland, B., & Taylor, S, M (2004) and some other research such as Cole (2003,2004) and Atici, C (2011) performed empirical studies on trade related to pollution Torras, M., and Boyce, K.J., (1998), Anderson (2001), Paudel, K.P., Lin, C., & Pandit, M (2005) discovered water pollution applying the Kuznets curve that shows the relationship between economic growth and income Copeland, B., & Taylor, S, M (2004) concluded that investment and trade are affected by pollution rules Further, they proofed that there was a positive relationship between growth and trade so should both growth and trade affect on environment And they consider about the benefit of environment policy which was applied for trade They couldn’t conclude that trade is good or bad to encourage environment quality and they required more empirical studies to support them for the final conclusion Atici, C (2011) only addressed how trade affects to environment in Asian and Japan while it may be a different result in Asian, Europe, Africa ect which should be explained further Using cross-country data to answer the question: “what is the effect of trade on a country’s environment, for a given level of GDP? ” Frankel, J., & Rose, A (2005, October) reported the results of this research which showed that openness reduces nitrogen oxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate substance emissions Besides, they also tested the Pollution Haven Hypothesis by adding an interaction between openness to trade and income per capita to their model They found little evidence of the hypothesized effect From their findings, Frankel, J., & Rose, A (2005, October) concluded that while some results indicated that openness to trade might help reduce air pollution, there was little evidence that openness to trade caused significant environmental degradation One other important exception in their results is carbon dioxide emissions, which trade openness tended to increase Frankel, J., & Rose, A (2005, October : 88) demonstrated for this difference by finding that “Carbon dioxide emissions is a purely global externality, and unlikely to be addressed by regulation at the national level.” The very interesting paper which the thesis will focus and review is the study of McCarney, G.R., & Adamowicz, V (2005, July 6-8) They researched the effects of trade liberalization on the environment They used panel data in the research to explain the effects of trade liberalization on the environment given other variables ceteris-paribus The unobserved heterogeneity between countries to be controlled using unbalanced panel data, they made the observation on the influence of how national characteristics effects of free trade on the environment There was no attempt for explanation for the relationship between the trade and environment for the year 1960 to 1970 Same conclusion with McCarney, G.R., & Adamowicz, V (2005, July 68) and supporting for this thesis was Harris, J.M (2002) Doing another way by examining the theory and practice of international trade so as to argue that expanded trade causes environmental damage He analyzed the gains and losses using the theory of comparative advantage associated with environmental effects of trade Furthermore, he proofed that export means expanded trade tended to increase the environmental damage given the scale of production for the world as a whole However, the weakness of this study is not convinced by econometrics that readers cannot be persuaded Kuhn, M.P, & Bernauer, T (2006) studied the effects of trade on international environmental policy-outcomes Their research had focused on three hypotheses The first was Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the second was namely “trading-up” which claims that more trade leads to higher domestic environment standards, and to convergence of international environmental standards at higher levels The third hypothesis received robust empirical support which claimed that neither trade intensity nor asymmetry had an effect on problem solving The study 10 Frankel, J (2009, January 20), Environmental Effects of International Trade Stockholm : a report for the Swedish Globalization Council, Government of Sweden Frankel, J., & Rose, A (2005, October), Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol 87(1), pages 85-91 Harbaugh, W.T., & Levinson, A & Wilson, M.D, (2001) Reexamining the Empirical Evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol 84(3), pages 541-551 Harris, J.M (2002), Trade and the Environment Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155 Kuhn, M.P, & Bernauer, T (2006), Does Trade Promote Effective International Environmental Problem Solving? Switzerland: The Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich, Seilergraben 49, 8092 Zurich Leontief, W.W (1953), Domestic Production and Foreign Trade : The American Capital Position Re-examined, Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society, Vol 93, pp.332-349 Leontief, W.W (1953), Factor Proportions and the Structure of American Trade : Further Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol 38, pp.386-407 Liddle, B (2001), “Free trade and the environment-development system”, Ecological Economics, Vol 39, pp 21-36 McCarney, G.R., & Adamowicz, V (2005, July 6-8), The effects of Trade liberalization on the environment: An empirical study San Francisco, California: Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society Annual Meeting Paudel, K.P., Lin, C., & Pandit, M (2005), Estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Water Pollutants at the Global Level: Semi parametric and 30 Nonparametric Approaches Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 Sturm, D (2003), Trade and the Environment: A survey of the literature n: Marsiliani, Laura and Rauscher, Michael and Withagen, Cees, (eds.) Environmental policy in an international perspective Kluwer Academic, pp 119-150 ISBN 9781402012457 Torras, M., and Boyce, K.J., (1998), Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve Ecological Economics, Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 147–160 Umed, T (2006, March), Pollution Haven Hypothesis or factor endowment hypothesis : Theory and empirical examination for the US and China Charles University, Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Economics Institute Yanikkaya, H (2002, October 01), Trade openness and economic growth: a crosscountry empirical investigation Journal of Development Economics, 72, pages 57 – 89 http://www.vafie.org.vn/ http://www.data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators http://www.wri.org/project/earthtrends/ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends APPENDICES: Table 6: Organic water pollutant emissions dataset The data is presented at mean data The data is of 78 countries which is spanning from 1960 to 2008 COUNTRY YEAR Afghanistan OPENNE BOD GDP POLITY LAND URBAN D2 48 184.075 163.94 5.49 -6.4 28.213739 652230 16.1771 0.39 Albania 48 2651.29 1278.9 15.2 -3.4 98.775918 27400 36.1682 0.39 Argentina 48 170072 3843.5 5.24 1.8 11.051584 3E+06 84.0898 0.39 Austria 48 86463.5 15379 19.7 10 93.293059 82450 65.6004 0.39 Azerbaijan 48 22737.6 1266.6 21.3 -5.7 78.964151 83088 51.4988 0.39 SS 31 POP COUNTRY YEAR BOD GDP OPENNE POLITY SS POP LAND URBAN D2 Belgium 48 102383 15068 29.6 9.9 345.03935 30280 95.4371 0.39 Bolivia 48 11827.5 708.42 8.64 2.5 5.668447 1E+06 50.191 0.39 Botswana 48 3266.93 1878.2 18.6 6.8 2.1141578 566730 28.8094 0.39 Bulgaria 48 105434 2374.5 18.9 -1 76.382174 110347 60.4449 0.39 Cambodia 48 3018.81 254.28 18.5 -2.9 50.825357 176520 12.9657 0.39 Canada 48 291727 15070 8.02 10 2.852444 9E+06 76.3061 0.39 Chile 48 87976.5 2871.4 11.1 16.501635 743530 80.4935 0.39 China 48 8327066 535.81 4.61 -7.4 110.76836 9E+06 25.3837 0.39 Colombia 48 88876.2 1459.8 6.62 7.5 27.123744 1E+06 63.1204 0.39 Croatia 48 43813.5 6637.5 27.4 2.5 80.538179 55918 48.3094 0.39 Cyprus 48 7719.68 10942 49.3 8.5 82.083845 9240 56.9143 0.39 Republic 48 161250 7741.3 20.3 9.6 131.32583 77268 70.8776 0.39 Denmark 48 73792.7 19400 20.3 10 120.57411 42395 82.5931 0.39 Ecuador 48 35676.3 1209.5 9.63 4.2 34.033357 270313 49.7094 0.39 Eritrea 48 2787.68 207.25 23.8 -6.5 27.829513 101000 14.9988 0.39 Estonia 48 18845.7 5818.3 34.3 7.6 33.350173 42390 67.6127 0.39 Ethiopia 48 21466.3 190.52 9.57 -4.7 43.149049 1E+06 11.4816 0.39 Fiji 48 5735.18 1652.3 42 5.5 36.373739 18270 40.3269 0.39 Finland 48 66398.5 15651 11.8 10 16.058328 304555 56.5408 0.39 France 48 515599 14833 10.6 7.9 102.80768 547669 72.6882 0.39 Germany 48 957274 18681 9.34 10 226.8959 349056 72.7465 0.39 Greece 48 51931.8 7850.6 13.3 6.1 76.337748 128900 55.8837 0.39 Haiti 48 4465.9 413.67 11.6 -4.8 237.17836 27560 26.5873 0.39 Hungary 48 118565 3906.4 16 -0.1 115.29565 89866 63.1408 0.39 Indonesia 48 754167 648.21 9.15 -3.8 91.14772 2E+06 28.2065 0.39 Rep 48 143822 1921.1 5.55 -6 28.460226 2E+06 51.931 0.39 Ireland 48 36179.7 13977 30.6 10 50.080251 68890 55.0935 0.39 Israel 48 53963.8 9257.2 19.5 9.3 206.68939 21640 87.6351 0.39 Italy 48 464517 12470 8.63 10 189.69888 294114 65.5971 0.39 Japan 48 1312954 17322 4.36 10 319.0061 365515 58.7502 0.39 Czech Iran, Islamic 32 COUNTRY YEAR BOD GDP OPENNE POLITY SS POP LAND URBAN D2 Jordan 48 20894.3 1529.9 43.8 -6.5 33.651826 88240 66.0661 0.39 Kazakhstan 48 100530 2514.7 13.6 -4.6 5.3773365 3E+06 53.4465 0.39 Korea, Rep 48 326635 5476 11.4 1.4 400.08107 98417 60.0147 0.39 Republic 48 15026.3 457.34 18 -1.9 20.348265 191800 36.9155 0.39 Latvia 48 30416.9 4365.3 22.2 39.034417 62190 64.9988 0.39 Lesotho 48 6886.08 277.94 22.2 -0.5 48.560017 30360 13.3535 0.39 Lithuania 48 43722.2 4758.2 16.3 10 53.888128 62680 59.3535 0.39 Luxembourg 48 5644.96 28437 149 177.61317 2590 78.8751 0.39 FYR 48 24407.9 2336.2 15.4 7.2 70.648267 25422 53.8551 0.39 Madagascar 48 97908.6 261.2 13.9 0.3 18.267107 581540 20.3743 0.39 Malawi 48 34712.1 147.87 13 -4.1 82.818445 94280 10.4184 0.39 Malaysia 48 188756 2335.1 23 4.8 50.660896 328550 46.3963 0.39 Mauritius 48 16748.2 2914.4 33.6 9.7 492.32449 2030 41.6073 0.39 Moldova 48 22839.4 682.53 23.8 7.2 117.71811 32881 39.0841 0.39 Mongolia 48 8176.27 995.03 15.7 -0.8 1.1992146 2E+06 51.3318 0.39 Morocco 48 80063.9 880.48 14.7 -7.2 48.965714 446310 43.6273 0.39 Netherlands 48 136566 15709 20.5 10 426.58652 33760 68.1804 0.39 Zealand 48 53882.2 10342 11.6 10 12.607051 263310 83.1412 0.39 Norway 48 52537.1 23151 7.05 10 13.681992 304305 69.1502 0.39 Oman 48 5406.63 5077.4 10.1 -9.5 4.895647 309500 51.0192 0.39 Panama 48 11872.2 2283.2 31.9 1.4 29.592488 74340 54.4735 0.39 Philippines 48 159180 672.21 12.9 2.3 185.46041 298194 44.5212 0.39 Poland 48 391083 4604.9 9.5 -0.6 117.56393 304620 57.3947 0.39 Portugal 48 120488 6519.3 11.8 105.88469 91498 45.8024 0.39 Romania 48 282233 2683.2 8.19 -1.6 93.734245 230059 47.1812 0.39 Federation 48 1496364 3837.5 8.93 4.5 8.4954621 2E+07 68.32 0.39 Singapore 48 33984 11236 63 -1.4 4335.8675 672.08 100 0.39 Slovak 48 56213.6 12620 15.7 8.6 103.88281 48100 49.7127 0.39 Kyrgyz ### Macedonia, New Russian 33 COUNTRY YEAR BOD GDP OPENNE POLITY SS POP LAND URBAN D2 Republic Slovenia 48 28316.9 834.06 18.1 10 93.320248 20140 44.6184 0.39 Spain 48 360515 9347 10.8 4.2 75.230822 499469 71.1906 0.39 Sweden 48 103445 18510 13.8 10 20.500828 410340 81.9037 0.39 Republic 48 65912.4 977.88 15.6 -8 59.866819 183758 46.9314 0.39 Tajikistan 48 19298.7 315.11 16 -3.3 32.255319 139960 32.0229 0.39 Tanzania 48 29711.9 274.25 16 -4.5 26.215853 885800 15.3865 0.39 Thailand 48 436714 1203.9 16.8 1.6 98.376698 510890 26.6927 0.39 Tobago 48 7739.54 4678.4 14 8.8 219.63129 5130 11.4722 0.39 Turkey 48 225009 2381.7 6.98 6.7 63.760096 769630 50.6543 0.39 Uganda 48 3011.75 208.87 10.7 -3 81.46447 199810 9.04408 0.39 Ukraine 48 536626 1414.5 17.3 6.4 84.304095 579349 61.2869 0.39 48 612389 13869 13.1 10 235.49029 241930 85.3037 0.39 States 48 2275790 18850 4.13 10 26.263263 9E+06 75.349 0.39 Vietnam 48 378831 412.05 18.6 -7 185.04641 322651 20.4261 0.39 Yemen, Rep 48 22209 570.38 13.7 -2.3 21.384215 527970 18.9629 0.39 Syrian Arab Trinidad and United Kingdom United Table 7: Carbon dioxide emissions data set The data is presented at mean data The data is of 150 countries which is spanning from 1960 to 2008 COUNTRY YEAR CO2 GDP OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 Afghanistan 48 0.09642 163.9 5.4909282 -6.35 28.213739 652230 16.177 0.8 Albania 48 1.65534 1279 15.242143 -3.39 98.775918 27400 36.168 0.8 Algeria 48 2.40127 1622 5.9752187 -6.04 9.2284179 2381740 48.146 0.8 Angola 48 0.60281 1117 27.291634 -4.41 7.7942369 1246700 30.961 0.8 Argentina 48 3.5345 3843 5.2392943 1.76 11.051584 2736690 84.09 0.8 Armenia 48 1.16112 1035 14.726103 4.11 103.45067 Australia 48 14.5524 14046 7.1822721 34 28480 63.133 0.8 10 2.0557805 7682300 85.679 0.8 COUNTRY YEAR CO2 Austria 48 Azerbaijan 48 4.41595 Bahrain GDP 7.1782 15379 OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 19.683385 10 93.293059 82450 65.6 0.8 1267 21.260984 -5.72 78.964151 83087.9 51.499 0.8 48 20.4143 11520 27.695777 -9.03 612.31574 700.833 86.225 0.8 Bangladesh 48 0.16039 241.6 4.2709517 0.22 729.07603 130170 15.875 0.8 Belarus 48 6.10992 2165 9.9206673 -3.5 47.260886 202843 57.284 0.8 Belgium 48 11.5349 15068 29.591443 9.92 345.03935 30280 95.437 0.8 Benin 48 0.16932 299.2 14.478071 -1.08 41.113474 110620 27.843 0.8 Bolivia 48 0.84619 708.4 8.6381019 2.49 5.668447 1083300 50.191 0.8 Botswana 48 1.52959 1878 18.623437 6.79 2.1141578 566730 28.809 0.8 Brazil 48 1.38524 2341 3.1103258 1.69 15.849917 8459420 68.248 0.8 Bulgaria 48 7.27696 2375 18.890461 -1.02 76.382174 110347 60.445 0.8 Burkina Faso 48 0.05446 208.1 9.6804026 -4.24 32.207108 273600 11.131 0.8 Burundi 48 0.03396 134.9 12.12925 -3.72 192.82429 25680 5.3122 0.8 Cambodia 48 0.10064 254.3 18.487826 -2.93 50.825357 176520 12.966 0.8 Cameroon 48 0.23157 596.6 14.315152 -6.22 23.303664 472710 34.998 0.8 Canada 48 15.6349 15070 8.02478 2.852444 9093510 76.306 0.8 Republic 48 0.06699 263.8 18.108293 -3.78 4.3225708 622980 32.834 0.8 Chad 48 0.03117 233.6 13.677659 -5.14 4.5637197 1259425 17.881 0.8 Chile 48 2.67946 2871 11.120214 China 48 2.01474 535.8 Colombia 48 1.49398 Comoros 48 Congo, Rep 10 Central African 2.96 16.501635 743530 80.493 0.8 4.6146772 -7.39 110.76836 9327448 25.384 0.8 1460 6.6236899 7.51 27.123744 1109500 63.12 0.8 0.1277 464.8 28.821435 212.51947 1860 23.644 0.8 48 0.45933 800.9 35.027686 -4.67 6.3820062 341500 48.822 0.8 Costa Rica 48 1.05424 2174 16.111733 10 54.521026 51060 47.484 0.8 Cote d'Ivoire 48 0.45312 652 18.35663 -6.55 33.665982 318000 35.946 0.8 Croatia 48 4.57017 6638 27.377847 2.5 80.538179 55918.1 48.309 0.8 Cyprus 48 4.8856 10942 49.256391 8.49 82.083845 9240 56.914 0.8 Czech Republic 48 12.1637 7741 20.254796 9.63 131.32583 77268.3 70.878 0.8 Denmark 48 10.4033 19400 20.2966 10 120.57411 42395 82.593 0.8 35 COUNTRY CO2 GDP 48 0.74959 821.5 46.714436 -4.56 18.806291 23180 71.876 0.8 Republic 48 1.34432 1406 14.791487 3.53 133.92256 48320 51.089 0.8 Ecuador 48 1.43817 1209 9.6334924 4.22 34.033357 270313 49.709 0.8 Rep 48 1.28356 677 21.86428 -6.08 51.441844 995450 42.552 0.8 El Salvador 48 0.59812 1119 12.106953 2.84 232.41238 20760.6 47.673 0.8 Guinea 48 1.51995 2796 38.444664 -6 13.051612 28050 31.956 0.8 Eritrea 48 0.13971 207.2 23.829055 -6.5 27.829513 101000 14.999 0.8 Estonia 48 12.7564 5818 34.343524 7.56 33.350173 42390 67.613 0.8 Ethiopia 48 0.0536 190.5 9.5682175 -4.69 43.149049 1067333 11.482 0.8 Fiji 48 1.08501 1652 42.0068 5.54 36.373739 18270 40.327 0.8 Finland 48 9.59722 15651 11.806924 10 16.058328 304555 56.541 0.8 France 48 7.23757 14833 10.615241 7.92 102.80768 547669 72.688 0.8 Gabon 48 4.2225 3668 25.14171 -6.78 3.3215414 257670 56.31 0.8 Gambia, The 48 0.1748 272.2 32.780538 3.25 85.281421 10000 33.056 0.8 Georgia 48 1.18786 1104 19.705832 5.22 76.759414 69490 50.773 0.8 Germany 48 10.537 18681 9.3372958 226.8959 349056 72.747 0.8 Ghana 48 0.27903 368.7 11.455915 -2.22 59.672688 227540 34.901 0.8 Greece 48 5.56932 7851 13.327272 6.08 76.337748 128900 55.884 0.8 Guatemala 48 0.59055 1062 8.2890983 1.37 76.63377 107160 39.587 0.8 Guinea 48 0.17986 423.9 13.302569 -6.1 23.608149 245720 23.844 0.8 Bissau 48 0.16573 217.3 13.921194 -2.4 33.104998 28120 22.12 0.8 Guyana 48 1.90766 722 37.509377 0.74 3.679314 196809 29.348 0.8 Haiti 48 0.12852 413.7 11.638223 -4.8 237.17836 27560 26.587 0.8 Honduras 48 0.60835 693.5 12.475169 3.14 38.980363 111890 36.354 0.8 Hungary 48 6.50932 3906 16.044771 -0.08 115.29565 89866.5 63.141 0.8 India 48 0.71649 312.3 5.5372667 8.55 266.73802 2973190 23.736 0.8 Indonesia 48 0.77212 648.2 9.1539951 -3.84 91.14772 1811570 28.207 0.8 Iran, Islamic 48 4.05367 1921 5.5538995 -6.02 28.460226 1628550 51.931 0.8 Djibouti YEAR OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 Dominican Egypt, Arab Equatorial 10 Guinea- 36 COUNTRY YEAR CO2 GDP OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 38.10551 437370 62.735 0.8 Rep Iraq 48 2.88669 1348 13.777654 -7.74 Ireland 48 7.98528 13977 30.585567 10 50.080251 68890 55.093 0.8 Israel 48 6.65093 9257 19.496931 9.35 206.68939 21640 87.635 0.8 Italy 48 6.38097 12470 8.6317568 10 189.69888 294114 65.597 0.8 Jamaica 48 3.17921 1867 36.419405 9.67 205.80593 10830 46.302 0.8 Japan 48 7.8662 17322 4.3559295 319.0061 365515 58.75 0.8 Jordan 48 2.43276 1530 43.810928 -6.51 33.651826 88240 66.066 0.8 Kazakhstan 48 11.2094 2515 13.58087 -4.56 5.3773365 2699700 53.447 0.8 Kenya 48 0.28273 319 18.861094 -2.85 36.446111 569140 15.412 0.8 Korea, Rep 48 4.89082 5476 11.379313 1.37 400.08107 98417.3 60.015 0.8 Kuwait 48 28.1372 14951 21.637075 -8.18 80.415007 17820 92.278 0.8 10 Kyrgyz Republic 48 1.1916 457.3 18.033489 -1.88 20.348265 191800 36.916 0.8 Lao PDR 48 0.11489 387.4 9.4352309 -5.02 16.770814 230800 15.205 0.8 Latvia 48 3.49581 4365 22.232318 39.034417 62190 64.999 0.8 Lebanon 48 2.81242 3878 81.805631 2.15 294.73769 10230 72.841 0.8 Lesotho 48 #DIV/0! 277.9 22.164445 -0.53 48.560017 30360 13.353 0.8 Liberia 48 0.44097 257.2 88.19091 -3.2 21.601057 96320 39.316 0.8 Libya 48 7.98865 6990 4.8383439 -7 2.067493 1759540 64.173 0.8 Lithuania 48 4.29131 4758 16.268452 10 53.888128 Luxembourg 48 28.5669 28437 149.38979 #### 62679.8 59.353 0.8 177.61317 2590 78.875 0.8 Macedonia, FYR 48 5.6393 2336 15.383876 7.17 70.648267 25421.7 53.855 0.8 Madagascar 48 0.11469 261.2 13.918222 0.31 18.267107 581540 20.374 0.8 Malawi 48 0.08594 147.9 12.970372 -4.09 82.818445 94280 10.418 0.8 Malaysia 48 3.73206 2335 23.010412 4.76 50.660896 328550 46.396 0.8 Mali 48 0.04428 222.8 17.238787 -2.1 6.9631899 1220190 20.738 0.8 Mauritania 48 0.60339 444.2 21.070492 -6.2 1.7887879 1030700 28.578 0.8 Mauritius 48 1.21267 2914 33.645229 9.66 492.32449 2030 41.607 0.8 Mexico 48 3.25091 3052 5.659319 -0.67 38.755224 1943950 66.724 0.8 Moldova 48 2.06853 682.5 23.848351 37 7.22 117.71811 32880.6 39.084 0.8 COUNTRY YEAR CO2 GDP OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 Mongolia 48 3.28214 995 15.720749 -0.82 1.1992146 1553560 51.332 0.8 Morocco 48 0.84141 880.5 14.719564 -7.24 48.965714 446310 43.627 0.8 Mozambique 48 0.17138 244.4 14.462857 -1.5 17.242566 786380 17.496 0.8 Namibia 48 0.88015 2152 18.914109 1.5523034 823290 26.628 0.8 Nepal 48 0.05606 159.6 12.548007 -3.1 123.88761 143066 8.2486 0.8 Netherlands 48 10.3889 15709 20.487631 10 426.58652 33760 68.18 0.8 New Zealand 48 6.54877 10342 11.631051 10 12.607051 263310 83.141 0.8 Nicaragua 48 0.61141 573.6 10.925849 -0.59 30.574498 120340 50.11 0.8 Niger 48 0.07871 230 11.029889 -3 5.8415691 1266700 12.8 0.8 Nigeria 48 0.54932 381.1 21.258235 -1.04 97.877008 910770 31.778 0.8 Norway 48 7.37198 23151 7.0514713 10 13.681992 304305 69.15 0.8 Oman 48 6.51015 5077 10.103342 4.895647 309500 51.019 0.8 Pakistan 48 0.53404 337.9 7.0514713 0.49 128.51561 770880 28.902 0.8 Panama 48 1.58862 2283 31.898385 1.41 29.592488 74340 54.473 0.8 Guinea 48 0.45587 621.9 22.192708 8.4616058 452860 11.614 0.8 Paraguay 48 0.48303 1075 11.944143 -2.22 9.6183535 397300 45.651 0.8 Peru 48 1.16804 1372 7.526075 2.59 15.080815 1280000 63.849 0.8 Philippines 48 0.74071 672.2 12.859645 2.33 185.46041 298194 44.521 0.8 Poland 48 9.55227 4605 9.4981232 -0.55 117.56393 304620 57.395 0.8 Portugal 48 3.49552 6519 11.841204 4.04 105.88469 91497.5 45.802 0.8 Romania 48 6.06801 2683 8.1917904 -1.59 93.734245 230059 47.181 0.8 Federation 48 11.4872 3837 8.9275703 4.47 8.4954621 1.6E+07 68.32 0.8 Rwanda 48 0.06769 197.6 11.964603 -5.69 235.61972 24670 7.1506 0.8 Saudi Arabia 48 11.6179 8437 18.803315 6.137974 2149690 64.927 0.8 Senegal 48 0.40845 524.2 18.867273 -1.22 34.460589 Sierra Leone 48 0.18723 217.9 12.870189 -1.88 Singapore 48 10.1212 11236 Republic 48 Slovenia 48 -9.49 Papua New Russian -10 192530 35.391 0.8 49.05293 71620 29.458 0.8 62.975385 -1.43 4335.8675 672.083 100 0.8 7.48696 12620 15.722946 8.56 103.88281 48100.2 49.713 0.8 7.54101 18.139989 10 93.320248 20140 44.618 0.8 Slovak 834.1 38 COUNTRY YEAR CO2 GDP OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 Solomon Islands 48 0.37875 109.9 25.830889 6.8 9.9961184 27990 11.894 0.8 Somalia 48 0.07168 2479 24.222023 -1.86 9.2232683 627340 27.607 0.8 Spain 48 5.23548 9347 10.804576 4.16 75.230822 499469 71.191 0.8 Sri Lanka 48 0.32034 506.9 13.359003 6.08 251.25768 62710 17.414 0.8 Sudan 48 0.20661 393.7 4.7835825 -4.12 10.127052 2376000 24.657 0.8 Swaziland 48 0.66047 1002 24.5583 -8.39 41.619549 17200 17.408 0.8 Sweden 48 7.62554 18510 13.813227 10 20.500828 410340 81.904 0.8 Switzerland 48 5.82831 26038 15.07014 10 164.72674 40000 64.289 0.8 Republic 48 2.47791 977.9 15.577009 -8.04 59.866819 183758 46.931 0.8 Tajikistan 48 0.47844 315.1 16.007752 -3.33 32.255319 139960 32.023 0.8 Tanzania 48 0.1155 274.3 16.002868 -4.48 26.215853 885800 15.387 0.8 Thailand 48 1.63658 1204 16.78727 1.61 98.376698 510890 26.693 0.8 Togo 48 0.1957 276.9 20.03692 60.85618 54390 27.11 0.8 Tobago 48 14.1314 4678 13.973419 8.79 219.63129 5130 11.472 0.8 Tunisia 48 1.42445 1424 19.474923 -6.55 46.616595 155360 52.994 0.8 Turkey 48 2.19504 2382 6.9818963 6.71 63.760096 769630 50.654 0.8 Turkmenistan 48 8.18003 1125 29.618214 -8.94 6.9712246 469930 46.625 0.8 Uganda 48 0.07132 208.9 10.655447 -3.04 81.46447 199810 9.0441 0.8 Ukraine 48 7.68901 1414 17.259122 6.44 84.304095 579349 61.287 0.8 48 32.9211 33046 13.096377 -8 19.938633 83600 78.185 0.8 Kingdom 48 10.2474 13869 13.096377 10 235.49029 241930 85.304 0.8 United States 48 19.353 18850 4.1258476 10 26.263263 9159213 75.349 0.8 Uruguay 48 1.71721 3121 11.026992 4.8 17.195405 175020 86.647 0.8 RB 48 6.09463 3168 6.5517158 7.69 19.657749 882050 80.074 0.8 Vietnam 48 0.56092 412 18.623577 -7 185.04641 322651 20.426 0.8 Yemen, Rep 48 0.82427 570.4 13.674534 -2.32 21.384215 527970 18.963 0.8 Syrian Arab -5.27 Trinidad and United Arab Emirates United Venezuela, 39 COUNTRY YEAR CO2 GDP OPENNESS POLITY POP LAND URBAN D1 Zambia 48 0.52531 453 13.261781 -1.91 9.4406792 743390 33.931 0.8 Zimbabwe 48 1.27465 570.1 9.3494329 -1.38 22.404453 386850 25.042 0.8 Table 8: Scatter graph of organic water pollutant emissions and openness to show a correlation at concentration dots, conversely with scattered dots 10,000,000 8,000,000 BOD 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 50 100 150 OPENESS 40 200 250 Table 9: Scatter graph of organic water pollutant emissions, openness and gdp a correlation at concentration dots, conversely with scattered dots 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 BOD GDP 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 50 100 150 OPENESS 41 200 250 Table 10: Scatter graph of organic water pollutant emissions, openness, gdp and democratic a correlation at concentration dots, conversely with scattered dots 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 BOD GDP DEMOCRATIC 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 OPENESS 1.Rich countries are described with GDP per capita=($15,000,0) Poor countries are described with GDP per capita=(0,$500) 3.Democratic countries are displayed at an index value of Polity=(0,5) Autocratic countries are displayed at an index value of Polity=0 Autocratic countries are displayed at an index value of Polity