Environmental Policy Options in the Multi-Regimes Framework
In this paper we extend the multi-regime framework to variables involved in the debate on economic growth and environmental quality, starting from a reexamination of the so-called Environmental Kuznets Curve. The aim is to discuss the double convergence hypothesis that implicitly stems from a recent line of research. According to it, some stylized facts would support the almost paradoxical hypothesis that economic growth produce not only cross-countries or regions convergence in per capita output, but also in (the demand of) environmental quality.
Factual analysis seems to reject the hypothesis of convergence in output or income levels. Available evidence, rather, seems to point out that there is no such a thing as a unique avenue to sustainable development while the convergence predicted in more conventional analyses, in particular within the framework of the so called Environmental Kuznets Curve, is far away from being demonstrated. Actual growth processes do differ from each other in a deep qualitative sense, to the effect of profoundly influencing final outcomes as well as the unfolding of the processes themselves. This reflects differences in initial conditions, of course, but also the different sectoral or integrated policies that have been implemented along the way.
Therefore, in contrast to the double convergence hypothesis, in our contribution we argue that growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the required change in the individuals preferences needed to shift social preferences away from private to public goods and that, moreover, the relationship between growth and environmental quality depends crucially upon the countrys growth model. Therefore, more than the quantitative it is the qualitative aspects that matters. The theoretical context that seems to lend itself to the analysis of such issues falls within the boundaries of the theories of endogenous growth. We argue that sustainable development, if it emerges at all, is the result of investment in immaterial capital (research, education and the like) more than the reflection of the exogenous forces (technological progress and demographic ) of the neoclassical theory. In the analysis of such issues, the environment offered by the multiregime approach proves useful as it highlights the qualitative properties of the dynamic processes, instead of focusing upon quantitative estimation of some special asymptotic states whose existence is often all but to be demonstrated.
Key wordsEnvironmental Kuznets curve Growth Regimes Framework Space Sustainable development
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Berlin, I., (1969), “Two concept of liberty”, in: I. Berlin, Four essays on liberty, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 4.Boehm, B., and Punzo, L.F., (1994), Dynamics of industrial sectors and structural change in the Austrian and Italian economies, 1970–1989, in Boehm, B., and Punzo, L.F., (eds.), Economic performance. A look at Austria and Italy, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- 5.Boehm, B., and Punzo, L.F., (2001), Productivity-investment fluctuations and structural change, in Punzo, L.F., (eds.), Cycles, growth and structural change: theories and empirical evidence, Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
- 6.Brida, G., and Punzo, L.F., (2003), Symbolic Time Series Analysis and Dynamic Regimes, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
- 7.de Bruyn, S., Van der Bergh, J. And Opschoor, H., (1997), Structural change, growth, and dematerialization: an empirical analysis, in Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Van der Straaten, J., (eds.), Economy and ecosystems in change: analytical and historical approaches, ISEE, Edgar Elgar.Google Scholar
- 8.Easterlin, R.A. (1974), Does economic growth improve the human lot?, in David, P., and Weber, R., (eds.), Nations and households in economic growth, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 9.Ekins, P. (1997), The Kuznets curve for the environment and economic growth: examining the evidence, Environmental Planning, A 29, 805–830.Google Scholar
- 10.Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1995), Economic growth and the environment, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–378.Google Scholar
- 11.Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1996), The inverted U: what does it mean? Environmental Development Economics, 1, 119–122.Google Scholar
- 12.IUCN, (1994), 1993 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- 14.Kuznets, S. (1955), Economic growth and income inequality, American Economic Review, 45, 1–28.Google Scholar
- 15.List, J.A. and Gallet, C.A., (1999), The environmental Kuznets curve: does one size fit all?, Ecological Economics, vol. XXXI, pp. 409–423.Google Scholar
- 17.Musu, I, (2000), Introduzione alleconomia dellambiente, Il Mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
- 18.Panayotou, T. (1995), Environmental degradation at different stages of economic development, in I. Ahmed and J.A. Doeleman (eds.), Beyond Rio. The environment crisis and sustainable livelihoods in the third world, Macmillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
- 19.Pezzey, J., (1989), Economic analysis of sustainable growth and sustainable development, World Bank Environment Department Working Paper, no15, Washington DC.Google Scholar
- 20.Selden, T.M. and Song, D. (1994), Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Environmental Economic Management, 27, 147–162.Google Scholar
- 21.Sen, A., (1981), Poverty and famines, Clarendon press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 22.Sen, A., (1999), Development as freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 26.Vincent, J.R. (1997), Testing for environmental Kuznets curves within a developing country, Environmental and Development Economics, vol. 2, 417–431.Google Scholar
- 27.World Bank (1992), World development report 1992: development and the environment, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 28.World Bank (1999), World development report, 1998/1999, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 29.World Bank (2000), World development report, 1999/2000, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar