Population and Environment

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 175–191 | Cite as

The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Methodological Artefact?

  • Joachim H. Spangenberg
Article

Abstract

A number of recent publications claims to have demonstrated that the pattern of environmental pollution in growing economies follows an inverted parabolic curve, called the environmental Kuznets curve. It is suggested that the Kuznets curve is a logical consequence of the kind of measurement but with little meaning for future, efficiency based environmental policies. Environmental Space as an measure of environmental pressures is introduced, accounting for the total use of energy, materials and land. Based on this, the trends in overall resource consumption are described. No indication of an environmental Kuznets curve can be found for the total resource throughput in several countries.

environmental Kuznets curve environmental policies environmental space material flow accounting consumption patterns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adriaanse, A. S., Bringezu, S., Hammond, A., Moriguchi, Y., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., & Schu¨tz, H. (1997). Resource Flows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies. Washington,D.C.: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Agras, J., & Chapman, D. (1999). A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets hypothesis. Ecological Economics 28(2), 267–278.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, R. U., & Martinas, K. (1995). Waste potential entropy: the ultimate ecotoxic? Economic. Applications 48, 95–120.Google Scholar
  4. Beckermann, W. (1992). Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment? World Development, 20, 481–496.Google Scholar
  5. Bundestag, Enquete-Kommision Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt des 13. Deutschen Bundestages, Ed. (1998). Zwischenbericht: Konzept Nachhaltigkeit. Fundamente für die Gesellschaft von morgen. Zur Sache. Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag.Google Scholar
  6. Cleveland, C. J., Kaufmann, R. K., & Stern, D. I. (2000). Aggregarion and the role of energy in the economy. Ecological Economics 32(299), 301–317.Google Scholar
  7. Ecological-Economics (1998). Special issue on the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics 25, 143–229.Google Scholar
  8. Ekins, P. (1997). The Kuznets Curve for the Environment and Economic Growth: examining the evidence, Environment and Planning. Ecological Economics 29, 805–830.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2000). Linking Resource Inputs to Outflows. The “End of Pipe”—Report on five Industrial Economies. Paper presented at the 3rd Biannual Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Transitions Towards a Sustainable Europe. Ecology-Economy-Policy, Vienna.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, 0H. (1997). Tons, Joules and Money: Modes of Production and Their Sustainability Problems. Society & Natural Resources (10/1997)Google Scholar
  11. Grossmann, G., & Krueger, A. (1992). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Princeton, N.J., USA: Woodrow Wilson School.Google Scholar
  12. Hans-Boeckler-Foundation, Ed. (2000). Pathways to Sustainability. Duesseldorf: Hans Boeckler Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Hille, J. (1998). The Concept of Environmental Space. Implications for Policies, Environmental Reporting and Assessments. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Hinterberger, F., Omann, I., Schmitz, S., & Spangenberg, J.H. (2000). Ein ökologisch-soziales Nachhaltigkeitsszenario für Deutschland. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Ergebnisse. Magische Dreiecke. Berichte für eine nachhaltige Gesellschaft. S. Hartard, Stahmer, Carsten, Hinterberger, Friedrich. Marburg, Metropolis. 1. Stoffflussanalysen und Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren.Google Scholar
  15. Hinterberger, F., Renn, S., & Schütz, H. (1999). Arbeit, Wirtschaft, Umwelt: Einige Indikatoren sozialer, wirtschaftlicher und ökologischer Entwicklung im Zeitablauf. Wuppertal Paper No. 89. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute.Google Scholar
  16. James, A. N. (1999). Agricultural land use and economic growth: environmental implications of the Kuznets curve. International Journal of Sustainable Development 2(4), 530–553.Google Scholar
  17. Ja¨nicke, M., et al. (1996). The Development of “Dirty Industries” in Industrial Countries. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  18. Jö rissen, J., Kopfmüller, J., Brandl, V., & Paetau, M. (1999). Ein Integratives Konzept nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Karlsruhe: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  19. King, J., & Slesser, M. (1994). Can the World make the transition to a sustainable economy driven by solar energy? International Journal of. Environment and Pollution 5, 14–29.Google Scholar
  20. List, J. A., & Gallet, C.A. (1999). The environmental Kuznets curve: does one size fit all? Ecological Economics 3(3), 409–424.Google Scholar
  21. Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J.H. (2001a). Indicators for Environmentally Sustainable Household Consumption. International Journal of Sustainable Development 4(1), 101–120.Google Scholar
  22. Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J.H. (2001b). Reichtum und Umwelt. Reichtum in Deutschland. K. Stadlinger, Rilling, R. Muenster: Westfaelisches Dampfboot: 115–128.Google Scholar
  23. Magnani, E. (2000). The Environmental Kuznets Curve, environmental protection and income distribution. Ecological Economics 32, 431–443.Google Scholar
  24. Metzner, A. (2000). Caring Capacity and Carrying Capacity—A Social Science Perspective. Paper presented at the INES 2000 Conference: Challenges for Science and Engineering in the 21st Century, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  25. Odum, H. T. (1996). Environmental Accounting. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (1999). Environmental Data 1999. Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
  27. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Towards a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. Journal for Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97–118.Google Scholar
  28. Ramos-Martin, J. (2000). Dematerialisation and the Energy Intensity of Spain. Paper presented at the 3rd Biannual Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Transitions Towards a Sustainable Europe. Ecology-Economy-Policy, Vienna.Google Scholar
  29. Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics 32, 319–332.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1992). Material Flows and Eco-Restructuring. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 1, 529–534.Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt-Bleek, F., Bringezu, S., Hinterberger, F., Liedtke, C., Spangenberg, J.H., Stiller, H., & Welfens, M. J. (1998). MAIA Einführung in die Material-Intensitäts-Analyse nach dem MIPS-Konzept. Basel/Berlin/Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  32. Seppälä, T., Haukioja, T., & Kaivo-oja, J. (2000). The EKC Hypothesis Does Not Hold for Material Flows! Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Test of Direct Material Flows in some Industrialised Countries. Paper presented at the 3rd Biannual Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Transitions Towards a Sustainable Europe. Ecology-Economy-Policy, Vienna.Google Scholar
  33. Spangenberg, J.H., Ed. (1995). Towards Sustainable Europe. A Study from the Wuppertal Institute for Friends of the Earth Europe. Luton/Brussels: FoE Publ.Google Scholar
  34. Spangenberg, J.H., Femia, A., Hinterberger, F., & Schütz, H. (1999a). Material Flow-based Indicators in Environmental Reporting. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  35. Spangenberg, J.H., Omann, I., & Hinterberger, F. (1999b). Sustainability, growth and employment in an alternative economic policy. Theory, policy and scenarios for employment and the environment. Paper presented at the 5th Workshop on alternative economic concepts for Europe, Brussels.Google Scholar
  36. Spangenberg, J.H., Omann, I., Bockermann, A., & Meyer, B. (2001). Modelling Sustainability—European and German Approaches. Integrative Systems Approaches to Natural and Social Dynamics. Systems Science 2000, Osnabru¨ck,SpringerVerlag Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  37. Spangenberg, J.H., Pfahl, S., & Deller, K. (1999c). Institutions for Sustainable Development—Lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. INDEX 99—Indicators and Indices of Sustainable Development, St. Petersburg, EOLSS Publ., London, 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Spangenberg, J.H., & Scharnagl, A. (1998). Modelling Sustainable Europe. Wuppertal Paper No. 92. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute.Google Scholar
  39. Tolba, M. K. & El-Kholy, O.A. On behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme, Ed. (1992). The World Environment, 1972–1992. Two decades of challenge. London: Chapman&Hall.Google Scholar
  40. UNDESA, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (1998). Measuring Changes in Consumption and Production Patterns. A Set of Indicators. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  41. UNDPCSD, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Policy Co-ordination and Sustainable Development (1996). Indicators of Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodologies. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  42. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme, Ed. (1982). The World Environment, 1972– 1982. Dublin: Tycooly International Publ.Google Scholar
  43. US Department of Energy (1997). Annual Energy Review. Washington DC: US Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  44. Verheyen, R., & Spangenberg, J.H. (1998). Die Praxis der Kreislaufwirtschaft. Ergebnisse des Kreislaufwirtschaft-und Abfallgesetzes. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  45. Weterings, R., & Opschoor, J.B. (1994). Towards Environmental Performance Indicators based on the Notion of Environmental Space. Rijswijk: RMNO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim H. Spangenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Cologne OfficeSERI—Sustainable Europe Research InstituteCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations