The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an empirical analysis

Abstract

Whether globalization is sustainable is a contested issue. The quantitative literature on the Maastricht Globalization Index (MGI) and the KOF index of globalization shows that globalization contributes positively to economic and human development, environmental performance, mortality, gender equality and physical integrity rights. However, globalization also drives within-country income inequality, especially in developing countries. Evidence on the effects of globalization on the ecological environment does not provide clear patterns; various dimensions of globalization have different effects on various pollutants. This article analyzes the statistical relationship between the most recent MGI (2012 edition) and the ecological dimension of sustainable development. The latter will be operationalized by considering four variants of the Ecological Footprint. The relation between globalization and sustainable development will be controlled for GDP per capita as a proxy for affluence and report the results for Pearson's correlations and multivariate regressions for up to 171 countries. We conclude that the overall index of globalization significantly increases the Ecological Footprint of consumption, exports and imports. The decomposition of globalization into different domains reveals that apart from the political dimension, all dimensions drive human pressures and demands on the environment. Globalization needs to go into new directions if it is to make a contribution toward all aspects of sustainable development.

The Policy Framework of Natural Resource Management in Oil-Dependence Countries

“…Several studies use this as an index for environmental degradation (Hassan, Xia, Khan, & Shah, 2019;Siche, Pereira, Agostinho, & Ortega, 2010) This index has the advantages of directly and indirectly demonstrating the environmental effects of production and consumption. It has been addressed in the literature in many aspects, the effect economic growth on the ecological Footprint (Aşıcı & Acar, 2016;Hassan, Baloch, Mahmood, & Zhang, 2019;Hassan, Xia, et al, 2019), the impact of FDI (Liu & Kim, 2018;Udemba, 2020;Zafar et al, 2019), socio-political factors (Charfeddine & Mrabet, 2017;S.-T. Chen & Chang, 2016;Dogan, Taspinar, & Gokmenoglu, 2019), and globalisation (Ahmed, Wang, Mahmood, Hafeez, & Ali, 2019;Figge, Oebels, & Offermans, 2017;Rudolph & Figge, 2017;Sabir & Gorus, 2019).…”

Governance, Globalization, and Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework

“…Goryakin et al (2015) demonstrated that social and political globalizations had the most profound positive association with women's propensity to be overweight and dominate the influence of economic and the overall index of globalization. Figge et al, (2017) investigated the effect of various measures of globalization on ecological footprints. The authors observe that the overall index of globalization significantly impacted on ecological footprints.…”

Sustainability Evaluation Based on a Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study in Hunan, China

“…Lazarus, et al [41] illustrated that almost 35% of the carbon Footprint was embodied in international trade. Figge, et al [42] conclude that the overall index of globalization significantly increases the Ecological Footprint of consumption, exports, and imports. Gao and Tian [43] used the ecological trade deficit to assess the pressure created by the export and import of resources and products.…”