آثار اقتصادي و زيست‌محيطي كاهش موانع واردات: تحليلي در چارچوب تعادل عمومي

زکریا فرج زاده, محمد بخشوده, محسن رضایی میرقائد, حمید آماده

چکیده


براي الحاق به سازمان تجارت جهاني، ايران بايد موانع واردات شامل تعرفه­ها و موانع غيرتعرفه­اي را كاهش دهد. كاهش اين موانع مي‌تواند پيامدهاي اقتصادي و زيست‌محيطي مهمي به دنبال داشته باشد. اين مطالعه با هدف تحليل اثرات اقتصادي و زيست‌محيطي كاهش موانع واردات صورت گرفت. براي اين منظور ابتدا يك مدل تعادل عمومي قابل محاسبه مبتني بر ماتريس حساب‌داري اجتماعي تدوين شد. در تحليل زيست‌محيطي، كل انتشار آلاينده‌هاي منتخب به سه گروه انتشار ناشي از مصرف سوخت، انتشار در جريان توليد و انتشار ناشي از مصرف نهايي غيرسوخت تقسيم گرديد. سياست­هاي كاهش موانع واردات نيز شامل جايگزيني موانع غيرتعرفه­اي با معادل تعرفه و دريافت تعرفه يكنواخت 14 و 4 درصد مي­باشد. يافته­هاي مطالعه نشان داد سياست­هاي ياد شده توليد ناخالص را افزايش و سطح عمومي قيمت­هاي اقتصاد را كاهش خواهد داد. افزون بر اين، اين سياست­هاي تجاري رفاه خانوارها را افزايش خواهند داد كه سهم خانوارهاي شهري و ثروتمند بيش از ساير گروه­ها مي­باشد. هم‌چنين مشخص گرديد كاهش موانع واردات موجب كاهش انتشار اغلب آلاينده­هاي منتخب مي‌شود اما بخشي از كاهش انتشار ناشي از كاهش مصرف سوخت و تغيير تركيب توليد، بواسطه افزايش انتشار در جريان مصرف نهايي از بين مي­رود. اين سياست­ها تركيب توليد را نيز به نفع بخش­هاي خدمات، نفت و گاز، فرآورده­هاي انرژي، منسوجات و پوشاك، شيلات و محصولات باغي تغيير خواهد داد.


واژگان کلیدی


موانع واردات، رفاه، محيط‌زيست، ايران، طبقه‌بندي

تمام متن:

PDF

منابع و مآخذ مقاله


Acharya S, Cohen S. Trade liberalization and household welfare in Nepal. Journal of Policy Modeling; 2008; 30: 1057–1060.

Adkins L G, Garbaccio R F. Coordinating Global Trade and Environmental Policy: The role of pre-existing distortions. National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. United States; 2007.

Arunanondchai J M. Applied general equilibrium analysis of trade liberalization on land-based sectors in Malaysia and Indonesia. Journal of Policy Modeling; 2003; 25: 947–961.

Beghin J, Dessus S, Ronald-Holst D, van den Mensbrugghe D. Empirical modeling of trade and environment, Trade and Environment in General Equilibrium: Evidence from Developing Economics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002; Chapter 3: 31-78.

Böhringer C, Löschel L. Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: Status quo and prospects. Ecological Economics; 2006; 60: 49-64.

Chemingui M A, Dessus S. Assessing non-tariff barriers in Syria. Journal of Policy Modeling; 2008; 30: 917–928.

Copeland B R, Taylor M S. Trade, spatial separation, and environment. Journal of International Economics; 1999; 47: 137-168.

de Melo J, Tarr D. A general equilibrium analysis of US foreign trade policy. MIT Press, Cambridge MA; 1992; Chapter 3: 41-63.

Dessus S, Bussolo M. Is there a trade-off between trade liberalization and pollution abatement?. Journal of Policy Modeling; 1998; 20(1): 11-31.

Fæhn T, Holmøy E. Trade liberalization and effects on pollutive emissions to air and deposits of solid waste: A general equilibrium assessment for Norway. Economic Modeling; 2003; 20: 703-727.

Gelan A. Trade liberalization and urban–rural linkages: A CGE analysis for Ethiopia. Journal of Policy Modeling; 2002; 24: 707–738.

Gumilang h, Mukhopadhyay K, Thomassin P J. Economic and environmental impacts of trade liberalization: The case of Indonesia. Economic Modeling; 2011; 28: 1030–1041.

Iran’s Energy Balance, Deputy of Electricity and Energy Affairs, Ministry of Energy, Tehran. http://pep.moe.org.ir, (assessed: April, 2011). [In Persian]

Jensen J, Tarr D. Trade, exchange rate and energy pricing reform in Iran: Potentially large efficiency effects and gains to the poor. World Bank policy research working paper 2768, Washington; 2002.

Kang S I, Kim J J. A quantitative analysis of the environmental impact induced by free trade between Korea and Japan. 7th annual Conference on Global economic analysis, trade, poverty, and the environment, Washington, D.C. United States; 2004.

Kerkhof A C, Nonhebel S, Moll, H C. 2009. Relating the environmental impact of consumption to household expenditures: An input- output analysis. Ecological Economics; 2009; 68: 1160-1170.

Low P, Yeats A. Do dirty industries migrate? International Trade and the Environment (P. Low, Ed.). World Bank Discussion Paper No. 159, Washington: The World Bank; 1992.

McDonald S, Thierfelder K, Robinson S. Globe: A SAM based global CGE model using GTAP Data. Department of Economics, University of Sheffield; 2007.

Mehrara M, Barkhordari S. Investigating impacts of Iran's WTO-accession tariff reduction on economic sectors using a CGE/AGE framework. Economic Researches; 2007; 80: 171-194. [In Persian]

Mojaver Hoseini F. Investigating Iran's WTO-accession impact using a CGE framework. Trade studies; 2006; 10(39): 1-37. [In Persian]

Muradian R, Martínez-Alier J. Trade and the environment: From a Southern perspective. Ecological Economics; 2001; 36(2): 281-97.

O´Ryan R, De Miguel C, Miller S, Pereira M.The Socioeconomic and environmental effects of free trade agreements: a dynamic CGE analysis for Chile. Environment and Development Economics; 2010; 8: 1–23.

Pasban F, Pourmoghim J, Afshari Z. Accession to world economy and impacts of decrease in tariff rates on Iranian agriculture: An CGE approach. Village and Development; 2010; 1: 83-109. [In Persian]

Rae A N, Strutt A. The WTO, agricultural trade reform and the environment: Nitrogen and agro-chemical indicators for the OECD. The Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy; 2007; 8(1): 11-32.

Stern R M, Deardorff A V. Globalization’s bystanders: Does trade liberalization hurt countries that do not participate?. World Development; 2006; 34(8): 1419–1429.

UNDP., Iran second National Communication to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), National Climate Change Office. Department of Environment, Tehran; 2010.

Vennemo H, Aunan K, He J, Hu T, Li S, Rypdal K. Environmental impacts of China's WTO-accession. Ecological Economics; 2008; 64: 893-911.

Wissema W, Dellink R. AGE analysis of the impact of a carbon energy tax on the Irish economy. Ecological economics; 2007; 61: 671-683.

World Bank, Iran trade and foreign exchange policies in Iran, reform agenda, economic implications and impact on the poor. Report No. 22953-IRN. Washington D.C.; 2001.

World Bank, Islamic Republic of Iran cost assessment of environmental degradation. Report No. 32043-IR. Washington D.C.; 2005.


ارجاعات

  • در حال حاضر ارجاعی نیست.