2010
DOI: 10.18356/12579fb3-en
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Air pollution and income distribution in India

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first strand reports the pursuit of economic growth has heightened environmental pollution, especially in developing countries (see Soytas and Sari, 2006;Narayan and Smyth, 2008;Apergis and Payne, 2009;Kasman & Duman, 2015;Farhani and Ozturk 2015;Ozturk et al 2016;Shahbaz et al 2017;Rauf et al 2018;Rafindadi and Usman, 2019;Dogan et al 2019;Dogan and Inglesi-Lotz, 2020;Usman et al 2019;2020 a&b). The second strand posits independence of environmental degradation and economic development, hence, does not follow the pattern of the EKC hypothesis due to sound environmental policies (see Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty, 2005;Mukhopadhyay, 2008;Nasr et al 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The first strand reports the pursuit of economic growth has heightened environmental pollution, especially in developing countries (see Soytas and Sari, 2006;Narayan and Smyth, 2008;Apergis and Payne, 2009;Kasman & Duman, 2015;Farhani and Ozturk 2015;Ozturk et al 2016;Shahbaz et al 2017;Rauf et al 2018;Rafindadi and Usman, 2019;Dogan et al 2019;Dogan and Inglesi-Lotz, 2020;Usman et al 2019;2020 a&b). The second strand posits independence of environmental degradation and economic development, hence, does not follow the pattern of the EKC hypothesis due to sound environmental policies (see Mukhopadhyay and Chakraborty, 2005;Mukhopadhyay, 2008;Nasr et al 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…); Dietzenbacher andMukhopadhyay, (2007);Mukhopadhyay, (2008) who found no evidence supporting the EKC hypothesis in India. The result also concurs withNasr et al (2015) who revealed the EKC hypothesis is not valid for South Africa and Katircioglu and Katircioglu (2018) who documented U-shaped pattern of EKC for Turkey.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%