%50%6f%6c%69%74%69%63%61%6c
-
KAIST Study Finds Politically Salient Immigration Issues Can Lead to Higher Industrial Pollution
When immigration or refugee issues become heated political topics, nearby factories may end up releasing more toxic substances. Although the two phenomena may appear unrelated, a KAIST-led international research team has found that they are in fact connected through the government’s limited administrative and fiscal resources.
KAIST (President Choongsik Bae) announced on the 10th of July that a joint research team led by Professor Narae Lee from The School of Business and Technology Management at KAIST, in collaboration with Professor Heli Wang from Singapore Management University (SMU), analyzed immigration-related legislation and environmental data across the United States and found that when immigration becomes a central political agenda, government environmental oversight weakens and firms’ toxic chemical releases increase. The research team describes this phenomenon as “institutional crowding.”
Government administrative capacity and budgets are not unlimited. When a new political issue emerges, government attention and resources become concentrated in that area. In the process, enforcement in relatively less visible policy areas, such as environmental oversight, may weaken. Although the research team analyzed immigration as a case study, they explain that this phenomenon is not limited to a specific issue. Rather, it represents a general mechanism that can arise when political agendas compete for limited government resources.
The research team combined data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) with immigration-related legislative data from U.S. states. By analyzing a total of 82,377 observations collected from 14,390 manufacturing facilities across the United States between 2010 and 2018, the team found that each additional immigration-related bill was associated with an average increase of about 1% in toxic chemical releases per manufacturing facility. This is equivalent to approximately 25 kilograms, or 56 pounds, of additional toxic emissions per facility.
The researchers found that this increase was not caused by a relaxation of environmental regulatory standards. Rather, it occurred because firms reduced costly efforts to cut pollution and treat toxic waste as government environmental oversight became relatively less effective.
This pattern was especially pronounced in states facing fiscal constraints. In states with high debt or heavy fiscal burdens, environmental oversight weakened further when political attention shifted to new issues.This suggests that when government budgets are tight, resources are more likely to be allocated first to politically urgent issues, while environmental monitoring may be pushed down the priority list.
Professor Narae Lee said, “This study does not argue that immigration causes environmental pollution. Rather, it shows that shifts in the political agenda item can weaken environmental oversight and thereby increase corporate pollution,” adding, “Even when limited government resources are concentrated on a particular issue, environmental oversight needs to be institutionally protected so that it remains stable.”
The study is significant in that it empirically identifies how competition among political agendas can affect firms’ environmental pollution management. It also offers new implications for public policy and for advancing environmental justice, so that the burden of environmental pollution does not fall disproportionately on socially vulnerable groups.
The research was published online on May 29 in the Journal of Management, a leading international journal in the field of management, with Professor Narae Lee as the first author.
An earlier version of the paper received the POSCO Corporate Citizenship Research Award, the Robert J. Litschert Award from the Academy of Management, and the Best Paper with Practical Implications Award from the Strategic Management Society, recognizing the excellence and practical significance of the research.
※ Paper title: There’s More Than Meets the Eye: Assessing the Impact of Immigrants on Firm Environmental Performance, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063261442451
2026.07.10 View 1355 -
Professor Jihee Kim Wins the Lucas Prize for Her Income Inequality Theory
Professor Jihee Kim from the School of Business and Technology Management at KAIST was announced as one of two winners of the 2021 Robert E. Lucas Jr. Prize. Professor Kim was recognized for having provided an empirical analysis on engines of income growth, sources of income inequality, and their rich interplay in her paper published in the Journal of Political Economy (JPE) in October 2018. The co-author of this study, Professor Charles I. Jones at Stanford University, was honored to be another awardee of this year’s Lucas Prize.
The Robert E. Lucas Jr. Prize, simply known as the Lucas Prize, is awarded biannually for the most interesting paper in the area of Dynamic Economics published in the leading economics journal JPE in the preceding two years. The prize was established in 2016 in celebration of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Economics Laureate Dr. Lucas’s seminal contributions to economics. The two former prizes were presented in 2019 and 2017 respectively.
Professor Kim and Professor Jones, in their award-winning paper titled 'A Schumpeterian Model of Top Income Inequality', observed that top income inequality was relatively low and stable between 1960 and 1980, but then rose sharply in some countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.
The authors focused on entrepreneurial activities and the resulting income as the driving force of income inequality. They assumed that the forces that increased the efforts of fast-growing entrepreneurs to improve their products or increased productivity of their efforts could increase income inequality. On the other hand, the forces that enhanced creative destruction or that raised the rate at which high-growth entrepreneurs lost that status could decrease income inequality, according to the authors’ theory.
Professor Kim explained, “Various economic forces due to globalization, the advancement in AI and IT technologies, taxes, and policies related to innovation blocking may explain the varied patterns in income inequality.”
“Through follow-up research, I will continue developing economic theory models that can analyze the impact of changes such as income tax rates and salary negotiations on income inequality,” she added.
Professor Kim received her bachelor’s degree from the KAIST School of Computing in 2005 and pursued her graduates studies at Stanford University, acquiring a master’s degree in economics in 2011 and a doctoral degree in management science and engineering in 2013.
(END)
2021.03.26 View 13391 -
Businessweek: How Twitter Could Unleash World Peace, April 11, 2011
A KAIST graduate scholar, Meeyoung Cha, conducted a joint study with international researchers and released a paper on the aspect of twitter as an emerging cyber arena for political and social debates and discussions. An article on the paper from Businessweek follows:
Businessweek
April 11, 2011, 9:08PM EST text size: TT
How Twitter Could Unleash World Peace
Researchers from Britain, Korea, and Germany have determined that the amount of fresh information you get on Twitter is less a matter of what you follow than whom—and who follows you
By Bobbie Johnson
On certain days, Twitter can feel like the world"s biggest, fastest echo chamber. Since we tend to follow people who are similar to us, we often see our own views reflected back—meaning a gloomy cloud of irritation can rapidly swirl into a cyclone of outrage as we hear from other people who feel as we do. A group of computer scientists have discovered that the opposite may also be true. Can Twitter be part of the solution, not merely part of the problem?
In a study to be presented at a conference in July, a team of researchers from the U.K."s University of Cambridge, Korea"s Graduate School of cultural Technology-KAIST, and Germany"s Max Planck Institute for Software Systems show how Twitter can provide users greater access to more varied political viewpoints and media sources than they might otherwise get.
The paper, called "The Media Landscape in Twitter(http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/out/twitter-diverse.pdf)," explains how the team made surprising discoveries when they looked into the site"s usage patterns. First they looked at who follows whom and discovered that Twitter is a highly politicized space. Then they examined patterns of tweeting and retweeting to try to understand how people receive information on Twitter—and what they might see. Their conclusion: Although Twitter is a pretty partisan space, it can offer unprecedented opportunities to break down the barriers that plague local, national, and international politics.
How? Through retweets and interaction—what the authors call "indirect media exposure." As they put it, this "expands the political diversity of news to which users are exposed to a surprising extent, increasing the range by between 60 percent and 98 percent. These results are valuable because they have not been readily available to traditional media and they can help predict how we will read news and how publishers will interact with us in the future."
If you"re interested in the way Twitter works, I recommend reading the paper, which isn"t very long. Meanwhile, let"s boil it down to a few key pieces of data and see what lessons they can teach.
Most Twitter users are political. Just over half (50.8 percent) of all Twitter users studied showed a distinct political bias in the media outlets and individuals they followed. Most of those lean to the left of the political spectrum, accounting for 62 percent of users who demonstrated some bias. Thirty-seven percent were doggedly centrist. Just 1 percent of Twitter users who showed a political preference were right-wing.
Here are a couple of caveats about reading too much into the sharp divide the authors found. Given that Twitter"s user base is younger and more metropolitan than the societal norm, it"s not surprising that it"s weighted to the left. It"s worth noting that this study was undertaken more than a year ago; since then, Twitter has grown dramatically, while global politics have largely skewed back toward the right. Twitter"s user base today might reflect a more-balanced political picture. Either way, there"s a big split.
Twitter has secondary and tertiary benefits. Most organizations comprehend Twitter in simple terms: More followers means more exposure. But the study shows that it"s not just about those you follow, but those your followers follow—essentially the people in your extended network. The network offers a number of routes for information from fresh sources to get to you. According to the study, some 80 percent of users choose to follow at least 10 media sources, but they are exposed to between 6 and 10 times as many media sources through their friends.
People outweigh brands. Many of the biggest Twitter accounts are big media brands such as CNN (TWX) and Time, but the study suggests that Twitter"s active users tend to prefer individuals over outlets. So while the average follower of @NYTimes (NYT) has six followers apiece, individual journalists have followers who boast a median following count of around 100. That gives individual journalists—who are, the study says, more likely to link to a multiplicity of sources—a much wider, more influential network of connections.
The inference is that the personal touch of a journalist is more important than the lofty, impersonal tone of publications that largely act as promotion channels for their content. It"s a discovery that reminded me of Twitter"s recent blog post on the science of the hashtag, which found that hashtags explode in usage when they are picked up by individuals with the most dedicated—not necessarily the largest—followings.
Active users access a wider range of views. The researchers say that indirect exposure expands political diversity by a "significant amount," despite other studies showing a tendency for social networks to do the opposite. "Other studies have found a stronger tendency of homophily; blogs of different political views rarely linked to each other," they point out. "One possible reason is that a Twitter network encompasses several different relationships—from shared interest, to familial ties, friends, and acquaintances—so political similarity doesn"t necessarily exist in all such ties."
This is not to say that Twitter"s creators should be preparing a Nobel Prize-winning speech. Far from it: The influence of its diversity is unknown. It could be that many people who see messages they disagree with simply change their behavior to screen out such material in future. But it shows that there is a potential to do something positive at Twitter. It"s clear there"s much work to be done. The researchers say they want to investigate a number of areas they"ve uncovered, having provided important insights at a time when politics seem more fractious and divided than ever.
2011.04.12 View 17816