Economic freedom vs. egalitarianism: An empirical test of weak & strong sustainability, 1970–2017

Abstract

Many argue that free markets drive climate change and harm environmental sustainability. They suggest that democratic controls over profligate capital and unregulated markets better secure economic wellbeing and environmental objectives. Eco-modernists, contrarily, argue that economic freedoms generate entrepreneurial technological change for reducing poverty and increasing environmental quality since people's demands for cleaner consumption are likely to be met by markets, and free markets are less likely to be affected by rent-seeking. Moreover, democratic publics also demand higher consumption and the protection of jobs in dirty industry, which would work against environmental causes. This study contrasts the effects of economic freedom and egalitarian democracy on environmental sustainability and atmospheric pollution, assessed as both weak and strong sustainability. The results show that economies that are friendlier to free markets increase physical capital (wealth) with lower damage to total environmental sustainability, measured as depletion of physical, human, and natural capital, including atmospheric pollution. Egalitarian democracy consistently reduces economic sustainability and increases atmospheric pollution. There is some evidence for an inverted-U shape relationship between egalitarianism and CO 2 emissions independently of economic freedom and the level of development. The results are robust to a battery of testing procedures, alternative models

Ecological footprint in a global perspective: the role of domestic investment, FDI, democracy and institutional quality

“…While a handful of studies have recently examined the effect of physical capital and environmental quality relationship, the link has received relatively little attention with quite few studies (Yang and Khan, 2021;Fadly, 2019;Dinga et al, 2022). Whereas some authors have examined the quality of institutions on the environment (Torras and Boyce, 1998;Culas, 2007;Mehmood et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2016;Abid, 2016;Gani, 2012), the role of democracy in the environmental literature remains less researched with prominently few studies (De Soysa, 2022;Romuald, 2019;Bernauer and Koubi, 2009;Li and Reuveny, 2006;Congleton, 1992). Specifically, using the quantile regression technique, Nathaniel et al (2020) tested the Pollution Haven hypothesis for nations of the coastal Mediterranean countries.…”

Institutional determinants of environmental performance

“…A few panel studies have been carried out in the literature (e. g. (De Soysa, 2022;Zhao & Madni, 2021)) which are able to use the information contained in the data simultaneously at the time series and cross-sectional level, but they can only be used without restrictions if the measurement of the variables included remains constant over time. This is not the case for some of the variables used here.…”

Citizens' attitudes towards climate mitigation policies: The role of occupational exposure in EU countries

“…The related mitigation policies implemented by a single country could have little effect on climate change issues such that there could be no net gains for society. More importantly, ambitious climate mitigation targets need public acceptance to be successful, given that they often entail substantial and uneven costs and benefits on citizens (Cherry et al, 2012; Colantone et al, 2022; de Soysa, 2022; Drews & Van den Bergh, 2016; Karakas & Mitra, 2020).…”