Income and Power Inequality as Determinants of Environmental and Health Outcomes: Some Findings^*

Abstract

Objective. The article corrects for two main shortcomings in conventional economic analyses of environmental change. First is the overemphasis placed on income growth, and general disregard for other socioeconomic factors. Second is economists' often oversimplified view of the environment, where distinctions between environmental necessities such as potable water and so‐called environmental luxuries are ignored. I test for the effectiveness of power inequality in explaining access to sanitation and safe water as well as their health consequences. Methods. I develop a two‐stage model seeking first to explain changes in the environmental variables and then population health. I employ ordinary least squares regressions on international cross‐sectional data. Results. Some dimensions of power inequality outperform per‐capita income as possible determinants of population health. Neither power inequality nor income is clearly superior at explaining environmental quality. Conclusion. The study casts further doubt on the importance of per‐capita income in explaining environmental and health outcomes.

The Transnational Organization of Production and Environmental Degradation: A Cross‐National Study of the Effects of Foreign Capital Penetration on Water Pollution Intensity, 1980–1995*

“…Considering the negative bivariate correlations between level of economic development and levels of organic water pollution intensity in both 1980 and 1995 (see Table 2), this finding is somewhat unexpected. Moreover, prior cross-sectional analyses find that level of economic development negatively affects organic water pollution intensity (e.g., Burns, Kentor, and Jorgenson, 2003;Hettige, Mani, and Wheeler, 2000; see also Torras, 2005). I briefly return to this result in the concluding section.…”

Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in the European Union Countries – Is there Evidence for the Environmental Kuznets Curve?

“…The EKC hypothesis is explained by two key factors: wealthier individuals "demand superior environmental quality because their more pressing needs are already met" [Torras, 2005[Torras, , p. 1354, and richer economies can afford to meet this demand through more environmentally friendly investments and apply more restrictive environmental standards. As Komen [1997, p. 509] argues, besides income per capita and environmental degradation a number of other specific components determine the EKC, such as technical development and scientific research.…”

The distribution of income is worse than you think: Including pollution impacts into measures of income inequality

“…The first concerns the distribution of emissions and exposure [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. The second set of papers considers inequality as a determinant of emission rates or pollution outcomes [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. A third literature gauges the impacts of environmental policies [ 32 , 33 , 34 ].…”