Lorsqu’un pays se développe, les inégalités s’accroissent dans un premier temps puis elles diminuent. Cette relation, nommé courbe de Kuznets en U renversé. Nous montrons que le capital humain des pays suit une courbe en U inversée, sorte de courbe de Kuznets du capital humain. De plus, la courbe de Kuznets de . Formation et déformation de la courbe de Kuznets environnementale pour les émissions de CO2 (in French). Home; >; Research; >; Publications; >; Formation .
|Published (Last):||22 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||5.5 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In economicsa Kuznets curve graphs the hypothesis that as an economy developsmarket forces first increase and then decrease economic inequality. The hypothesis was first advanced by economist Simon Kuznets in the s and ’60s. One explanation of such a progression suggests that early in developmentinvestment opportunities for those who have money multiply, while an influx of cheap rural labor to the cities holds down wages.
Whereas in mature economies, human capital accrual an estimate of cost that has been incurred but not yet paid takes the place of physical capital accrual as the main source of growth; and inequality slows growth by lowering education levels because poorer, disadvantaged people lack finance for their education in imperfect credit-markets. As internal migration by farmers looking for better-paying jobs in urban hubs causes a significant rural-urban inequality gap the owners of firms would be profiting, while laborers from those industries would see their incomes rise at a much slower rate and agricultural workers would possibly see their incomes decreaserural populations decrease as urban populations increase.
Inequality is then expected to decrease when a certain level of average income is reached and the processes of industrialization — democratization and the rise of the welfare state — allow for the benefits from rapid growthand increase the per-capita income.
Kuznets curve diagrams show an inverted U curve, although variables along the axes are often mixed and matched, with inequality or the Gini coefficient on the Y axis and economic development, time or per-capita incomes on the X axis.
Since the environmental Kuznets curve EKC has become a standard feature in the technical literature of environmental policy d its application there has been strongly contested.
Formation et déformation de la Courbe de Kuznets Environnementale pour les émissions de CO2
Critics of the Kuznets curve theory argue that its U-shape comes not from progression in the development of individual countries, but rather from historical differences between countries. For instance, many of the middle income countries used in Kuznets’ data set were in Latin America, a region with historically high levels of inequality.
When controlling for this variable, the U-shape of the curve tends to disappear e. Couurbe and Squire, Regarding the empirical evidence, based on large panels of countries or time series approaches, Fields considers the Kuznets hypothesis refuted. The East Asian miracle has been used to criticize the validity of the Kuznets curve theory. Manufacturing and export grew quickly and powerfully.
Yet simultaneously, life expectancy was found to increase and population levels living in absolute poverty decreased. Stiglitz highlights that kuznes high rates of growth provided the resources to promote equality, which acted as a luznets loop to support the high rates of growth.
Formation et déformation de la Courbe de Kuznets Environnementale pour les émissions de CO2
The EAM defies the Kuznets curve, which insists growth produces inequality, and that inequality is a necessity for overall growth. Palma goes on to note that, among middle-income countries, only those in Latin America and Southern Africa live in an inequality league of their own. Palma then shows that there are two cojrbe trends taking place in inequality within a country:. In a biography about Simon Kuznwts scientific methods, economist Robert Fogel noted Kuznets’ own reservations about the kuzntes of the data” which underpinned the hypothesis.
Fogel notes that most of Kuznets’ paper was devoted to explicating the conflicting factors at play. Kuznwts emphasized Kuznets’ opinion that “even if the data turned out to be valid, they pertained to an extremely limited period of time and to exceptional ,uznets experiences. There have been mixed findings with this idea — some developing countries have experienced greater inequality, less inequality, or no difference at all, due to trade liberalization.
Because of this, Dobson and Ramlogan suggest that perhaps trade openness can be related to inequality through a Kuznets curve framework. Dobson and Ramlogan determine trade openness by the ratio of exports and imports the total trade and the average tariff rate; inequality is determined by gross primary school enrolment rates, the share of agriculture in kuznfts output, the rate of inflation, and cumulative privatization.
This shift would not benefit low-skill workers as much. So although their evidence seems to support the Kuznets theory in relation to trade liberalization, Dobson and Ramlogan assert that policies for redistribution must be simultaneously implemented in order to mitigate the initial increase in inequality.
The environmental Kuznets curve is a hypothesized relationship between environmental quality and economic development: Deforestation may follow a Kuznets curve cf.
Education inequalities and the Kuznets curves: a global perspective since 1870
However, the applicability of the EKC is debatable when it comes to other pollutants, some natural resource use, and biodiversity conservation. Additionally, the status of many key ” ecosystem services ” provided by ecosystems, such as freshwater provision Perman, et al.
Proponents kuxnets the EKC argue that this varied relationship does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis, but instead that the applicability of the Kuznets curves to various environmental indicators may differ when considering different ecosystems, economics, regulatory schemes, and technologies. At least one critic argues that the US is still struggling to attain the income level necessary to prioritize certain environmental pollutants such as carbon emissions, which have yet to follow the EKC.
JEWISHERITAGE: SIMON KUZNETS
As a country develops, the marginal value of cleaning up such pollutants makes a large direct improvement to the quality of citizens’ lives. Conversely, reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not have a dramatic impact at a local level, so the impetus to clean them up is only for the altruistic reason of improving the global environment. This becomes a tragedy of the commons where it is most efficient for everyone to pollute and for no one to clean up, and everyone is worse as a result Hardin, Thus, even in a country like the US with a high level of income, carbon emissions are not decreasing in accordance with the EKC.
Other critics points out ds researchers also disagree about the shape of the curve when longer-term time scales are evaluated. For example, Millimet and Stengos regard the traditional “inverse U” shape as actually being an “N” shape, indicating that pollution increases as a country develops, decreases once the threshold GDP is reached, and then begins increasing as national income continues to increase.
While such findings are still being debated, it could prove to be important because it poses the concerning question of whether pollution actually begins to decline for good when an economic threshold is reached or whether the decrease is only in local pollutants and pollution is simply exported to poorer developing countries. Levinson concludes that the environmental Kuznets curve is insufficient to support a pollution policy regardless whether it is coubre or interventionistalthough the literature has been juznets this way by the press.
Suri and Chapman argue that the EKC is not applicable on the global scale, as a net pollution reduction may not actually be occurring globally. Wealthy nations have a trend of exporting the activities that create the most pollution, like manufacturing of clothing and furniture, to poorer nations that are still in the process of industrial development Suri and Chapman, This could mean that as the world’s poor nations develop, they will have nowhere to export their pollution.
Thus, this progression of environmental clean-up occurring in conjunction with economic growth cannot be replicated indefinitely because there may be nowhere to export waste and pollution-intensive processes.
However, Gene Grossman and Alan B. Kruegerthe authors who initially made the correlation between economic growth, environmental clean-up, and the Kuznets curve, conclude that there is “no evidence that dw quality deteriorates steadily with economic growth. Stern warns “it is very easy to do bad econometrics “, and says “the history of ve EKC exemplifies what can go wrong”.
He finds that “little or no attention has been paid to the statistical properties of the data used such as serial dependence or stochastic trends in time series and few tests of model adequacy have been carried out or presented.
However, one of the main purposes of doing econometrics is to test which apparent relationships He states his unequivocal finding: Instead, we get a more realistic view of the effect of economic growth and technological changes on environmental quality. It seems that most indicators of environmental degradation are monotonically rising in income though the ‘ income elasticity ‘ is less than one and is not a simple function of income alone.
Time related effects reduce environmental impacts in countries at all levels of income. However, in rapidly growing middle income countries the scale effect, which increases pollution and other degradation, overwhelms the time effect.
In wealthy countries, growth is slower, and pollution reduction efforts can se the scale effect. This is the origin of the apparent EKC effect”. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Policy Modeling. Retrieved 2 February The Property and Environment Research Center. Retrieved 16 June Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review 45 March: The World Bank Research Cohrbe. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Economic development and environmental quality: Oxford Economic Papers 46 October: Archived from the original on 15 June Sedjo Resources for the Futureand Paul E. Retrieved 18 June Retrieved 17 December Retrieved 15 October Ecological anthropology Ecological economics Environmental anthropology Environmental economics Environmental communication Environmental history Environmental politics Environmental psychology Environmental sociology Human ecology Human geography Political ecology Regional science.
Agroecology Anthrozoology Behavioral geography Community studies Demography Design ecological environmental Ecological humanities Economics energy thermo Environmental education ethics law science studies Ethnobiology botany ecology zoology Forestry Industrial ecology Integrated geography Permaculture Rural sociology Science, technology and society science studies Sustainability science studies Systems ecology Urban ecology geography metabolism studies.
Architecture landscape sustainable Ecopsychology Engineering ecological environmental Green criminology Health environmental epidemiology occupational public Management environmental fisheries forest natural resource waste Planning environmental land use regional spatial urban Policy energy environmental. Retrieved from ” https: Economic inequality Economics curves Environmental economics Environmental social science concepts.