An interregional input-output analysis of the pollution content of trade flows and environmental trade balances between five states in the US Mid-West

In this paper we attempt an empirical application of the multi-region input-output (MRIO) method in order to enumerate the pollution content of interregional trade flows between five Mid-West regions/states in the US –Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin – and the rest of the US. This allows us to analyse some very important issues in terms of the nature and significance of interregional environmental spillovers within the US Mid-West and the existence of pollution ‘trade balances’ between states. Our results raise questions in terms of the extent to which authorities at State level can control local emissions where they are limited in the way some emissions can be controlled, particularly with respect to changes in demand elsewhere in the Mid-West and US. This implies a need for policy co-ordination between national and state level authorities in the US to meet emissions reductions targets. The existence of an environmental trade balances between states also raises issues in terms of net losses/gains in terms of pollutants as a result of interregional trade within the US and whether, if certain activities can be carried out using less polluting technology in one region relative to others, it is better for the US as a whole if this type of relationship exists.

The Spillover Effects of Monitoring: A Field Experiment.

We provide field experimental evidence of the effects of monitoring in a context where productivity is multi-dimensional and only one dimension is monitored and incentivised. We hire students to do a job for us. The job consists of identifying euro coins. We study the effects of monitoring and penalising mistakes on work quality, and evaluate spillovers on non- incentivised dimensions of productivity (punctuality and theft). We .nd that monitoring improves work quality only if incentives are large, but reduces punctuality substantially irrespectively of the size of incentives. Monitoring does not affect theft, with ten per cent of participants stealing overall. Our setting also allows us to disentangle between possible theoretical mechanisms driving the adverse effects of monitoring. Our .ndings are supportive of a reciprocity mechanism, whereby workers retaliate for being distrusted.