Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 1—Winter 2002—Pages 147–168

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 1—Winter 2002—Pages 147–168
Confronting the Environmental

Kuznets Curve
Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante,

Hua Wang and David Wheeler
T he environmental Kuznets curve posits an inverted-U relationship be-

tween pollution and economic development. Kuznets’s name was appar-
ently attached to the curve by Grossman and Krueger (1993), who noted
its resemblance to Kuznets’s inverted-U relationship between income inequality
and development. In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environ-
mental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in
jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for
abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak. The balance
shifts as income rises. Leading industrial sectors become cleaner, people value the
environment more highly, and regulatory institutions become more effective.
Along the curve, pollution levels off in the middle-income range and then falls
toward pre-industrial levels in wealthy societies.
The environmental Kuznets curve model has elicited conflicting reactions
from researchers and policymakers. Applied econometricians have generally ac-
cepted the basic tenets of the model and focused on measuring its parameters.
Their regressions, typically fitted to cross-sectional observations across countries or
regions, suggest that air and water pollution increase with development until per
capita income reaches a range of $5000 to $8000. When income rises beyond that
level, pollution starts to decline, as shown in the “conventional EKC” line in
Figure 1. In developing countries, some policymakers have interpreted such results
as conveying a message about priorities: Grow first, then clean up.
Numerous critics have challenged the conventional environmental Kuznets
curve, both as a representation of what actually happens in the development
process and as a policy prescription. Some pessimistic critics argue that cross-
sectional evidence for the environmental Kuznets curve is nothing more than a
y Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante, Hua Wang, and David Wheeler are Economists,
Development Research Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
148 Journal of Economic Perspectives
Figure 1
Environmental Kuznets Curve: Different Scenarios
snapshot of a dynamic process. Over time, they claim, the curve will rise to a
horizontal line at maximum existing pollution levels, as globalization promotes a
“race to the bottom” in environmental standards, as shown in Figure 1. Other
pessimists hold that, even if certain pollutants are reduced as income increases,
industrial society continuously creates new, unregulated and potentially toxic pol-
lutants. In their view, the overall environmental risks from these new pollutants may
continue to grow even if some sources of pollution are reduced, as shown by the
“new toxics” line in Figure 1. Although both pessimistic schools make plausible
claims, neither has bolstered them with much empirical research.
In contrast, recent empirical work has fostered an optimistic critique of the
conventional environmental Kuznets curve. The new results suggest that the level
of the curve is actually dropping and shifting to the left, as growth generates less
pollution in the early stages of industrialization and pollution begins falling at
lower income levels, as shown by the “revised EKC” in Figure 1.
The stakes in the environmental Kuznets curve debate are high. Per capita
GDP in 1998 (in purchasing power parity dollars) was $1440 in the nations of
sub-Saharan Africa, $2060 in India, $2407 in Indonesia, and $3051 in China (World
Bank, 2000). Since these societies are nowhere near the income range associated
with maximum pollution on the conventional environmental Kuznets curve, a
literal interpretation of the curve would imply substantial increases in pollution
during the next few decades. Moreover, empirical research suggests that pollution
costs are already quite high in these countries. For example, recent World Bank
estimates of mortality and morbidity from urban air pollution in India and China
suggest annual losses in the range of 2–3 percent of GDP (Bolt, Hamilton, Pandey
and Wheeler, 2001).
The stakes are not trivial for industrial societies, either. Those who believe in
the “race to the bottom” model repeatedly advocate trade and investment restric-
Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante, Hua Wang and David Wheeler 149
tions that will eliminate the putative cost advantage of “pollution havens” in the
developing world. If their assessment of the situation is correct, then industrial
society faces two unpalatable options: Protect environmental gains by moving back
toward autarky, but reducing global income in the process, or accept much higher
global pollution under unrestrained globalization. Moreover, industrialized coun-
tries surely must consider the daunting possibility that they are not actually making
progress against pollution as their incomes rise, but instead are reducing only a few
measured and well-known pollutants while facing new and potentially greater
environmental concerns.
In this paper, we review the arguments and the evidence on the position, shape
and mutability of the environmental Kuznets curve. We ultimately side with the
optimists— but with some reservations.
Theory and Measurement of the Relationship between Economic

Development and Environmental Quality
Numerous theoretical and empirical papers have considered the broad rela-
tionship between economic development and environmental quality. The focus of
the theoretical papers has mainly been to derive transition paths for pollution,
abatement effort and development under alternative assumptions about social
welfare functions, pollution damage, the cost of abatement, and the productivity of
capital. This theoretical work has shown that an environmental Kuznets curve can
result if a few plausible conditions are satisfied as income increases in a society:
specifically, the marginal utility of consumption is constant or falling; the disutility
of pollution is rising; the marginal damage of pollution is rising; and the marginal
cost of abating pollution is rising. Most theoretical models implicitly assume the
existence of public agencies that regulate pollution with full information about the
benefits and costs of pollution control. In addition, they assume that the pollution
externality is local, not cross-border. In the latter case, there would be little local
incentive to internalize the externality.
López (1994) uses a fairly general theoretical model to show that if producers
pay the social marginal cost of pollution, then the relationship between emissions
and income depends on the properties of technology and preferences. If prefer-
ences are homothetic, so that percentage increases in income lead to identical
percentage increases in what is consumed, then an increase in output will result in
an increase in pollution. But if preferences are nonhomothetic, so that the pro-
portion of household spending on different items changes as income rises, then the
response of pollution to growth will depend on the degree of relative risk-aversion
and the elasticity of substitution in production between pollution and conventional
inputs.
Selden and Song (1995) derive an inverted-U curve for the relationship
between optimal pollution and the capital stock, assuming that optimal abatement
is zero until a given capital stock is achieved, and that it rises thereafter at an
increasing rate. John and Pecchenino (1994), John, Pecchenio, Schimmelpfennig

and Schreft (1995), and McConnell (1997) derive similar inverted-U curves by
using overlapping generations models. Recent analytical work by López and Mitra
(2000) suggests that corruption may also account for part of the observed relation-
ship between development and environmental quality. Their results show that for
any level of per capita income, the pollution level corresponding to corrupt
behavior is always above the socially optimal level. Further, they show that the
turning point of the environmental Kuznets curve takes place at income and
pollution levels above those corresponding to the social optimum.
Numerous empirical studies have tested the environmental Kuznets curve
model. The typical approach has been to regress cross-country measures of ambient
air and water quality on various specifications of income per capita. For their data
on pollution, these studies often rely on information from the Global Environmen-
tal Monitoring System (GEMS), an effort sponsored by the United Nations that has
gathered pollution data from developed and developing countries. The GEMS
database includes information on contamination from commonly regulated air and
water pollutants. Stern, Auld, Common and Sanyal (1998) have supplemented the
GEMS data with a more detailed accounting of airborne sulfur emissions. Although
greenhouse gases have not been included in the GEMS database, carbon dioxide
emissions estimates for most developed and developing countries are available
from the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Marland, Boden and Andres,
2001).
Empirical researchers are far from agreement that the environmental Kuznets
curve provides a good fit to the available data, even for conventional pollutants. In
one of the most comprehensive reviews of the empirical literature, Stern (1998)
argues that the evidence for the inverted-U relationship applies only to a subset of
environmental measures; for example, air pollutants such as suspended particulates
and sulfur dioxide. Since Grossman and Krueger (1993) find that suspended
particulates decline monotonically with income, even Stern’s subset is open to
contest. In related work, Stern, Auld, Common and Sanyal (1998) find that sulfur
emissions increase through the existing income range. Results for water pollution
are similarly mixed.
Empirical work in this area is proceeding in a number of directions. First,
international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme
and the World Bank are sponsoring collection of more data on environmental
quality in developing countries. As more data is collected, new opportunities will
open up for studying the relationship between economic development and envi-
ronmental quality. In the meantime, it is useful to think about how to compensate
for incomplete monitoring information. For example, Selden and Song (1994)
develop estimates of air emissions based on national fuel-use data and fuel-specific
pollution parameters that are roughly adjusted for conditions in countries at
varying income levels.
A second issue is that for many pollutants data is scarce everywhere, not just in
developing countries. The GEMS effort has focused on a few “criteria” pollutants,
so-designated because legal statutes have required regulators to specify their dam-
Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve 151
aging characteristics. Criteria air pollutants, for example, have generally included
ozone, carbon monoxide, suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead and nitrogen
oxide. A far broader class of emissions, known as toxic pollutants, includes mate-
rials that cause death, disease or birth defects in exposed organisms. Among the
hundreds of unregulated toxic pollutants that have been subjected to laboratory
analysis, the quantities and exposures necessary to produce damaging effects have
been shown to vary widely. Literally thousands of potentially toxic materials remain
untested and unregulated.
Data gathering in this area has started, as some countries have mandated
public reports of toxic emissions by industrial facilities. For example, the United
States has a Toxic Release Inventory; Canada has a National Pollutant Release
Inventory; the United Kingdom has a Pollutant Inventory; and Australia has a
National Pollutant Inventory. Using sectoral estimates of toxic emissions relative to
level of output, developed from U.S. data by Hettige, Martin, Singh and Wheeler
(1995), researchers have estimated toxic emissions in eastern Europe (Laplante
and Smits, 1998) and Latin America (Hettige and Wheeler, 1996; Dasgupta,
Laplante and Meisner, 2001). However, the underlying scarcity of data has as yet
made it impossible to do more than speculate about the shape of an environmental
Kuznets curve for toxics.
A third empirical issue involves thinking about the curvature of the environ-
mental Kuznets curve. In most cases, the implied relationship between income
growth and pollution is sensitive to inclusion of higher-order polynomial terms in
per capita income whose significance varies widely.
Fourth, it is useful to compare the results of time series studies where the
environmental evidence is available. De Bruyn, van den Bergh and Opschoor
(1998) estimate time series models individually for Netherlands, Germany, the
United Kingdom and the United States and show that economic growth has had a
positive effect on emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.
They argue that conventional cross-section estimation techniques have generated
spurious estimates of the environmental Kuznets curve because they do not ade-
quately capture the dynamic process involved.
Given the data limitations, concerns over appropriate functional forms, and
choices between cross-section and time series analysis, structural interpretations of
the environmental Kuznets curve have remained largely ad hoc. In view of these
uncertainties, few researchers have taken the next step and begun to study the
sources of change in the marginal relationship between economic development
and pollution.
How the Environmental Kuznets Curve Can Become Lower and

Flatter
Research on the environmental Kuznets curve has suggested that its shape is
not likely to be fixed. Instead, the relationship between growth in per capita
income and environmental quality will be determined by how many parties react to
economic growth and its side effects—including citizens, businesses, policymakers,
regulators, nongovernmental organizations, and other market participants. A body
of recent research has investigated these connections. The theme that emerges
from this research is that it is quite plausible for developing societies to have
improvements in environmental quality. It also seems likely that because of growing
public concern and research knowledge about environmental quality and regula-
tion, countries may be able to experience an environmental Kuznets curve that is
lower and flatter than the conventional measures would suggest. That is, they may
be able to develop from low levels of per capita income with little or no degradation
in environmental quality, and then at some point to experience improvements in
both income and environmental quality.
The Primary Role of Environmental Regulation

In principle, observed changes in pollution as per capita income rises could
come from several different sources: shifts in the scale and sectoral composition of
output, changes in technology within sectors, or the impact of regulation on
pollution abatement (Grossman and Krueger, 1993). The absence of appropriate
microdata across countries has precluded a systematic empirical approach to this
decomposition. However, the available evidence suggests that regulation is the
dominant factor in explaining the decline in pollution as countries grow beyond
middle-income status.
For instance, Panayotou (1997) estimates a decomposition equation for a
sample of 30 developed and developing countries for the period 1982–1994. He
incorporates policy considerations into the income-environment relationship while
decomposing it into scale, sectoral composition and pollution intensity (or pollu-
tion per unit of output) effects. His main finding, at least for ambient sulfur dioxide
levels, is that effective policies and institutions can significantly reduce environ-
mental degradation at low income levels and speed up improvements at higher
income levels, thereby lowering the environmental Kuznets curve and reducing the
environmental cost of growth. However, the estimated equation is not derived from
any formal structural equation. In addition, in the absence of actual measures of
environmental regulation, Panayotou uses indices of contract enforcement and
bureaucratic efficiency as proxies. De Bruyn (1997) decomposes the growth-
environment relationship in a sample of OECD and former socialist economies,
using a divisia index methodology. Analyzing changes in sulfur dioxide pollution,
he finds a significant role for environmental policy, but not for structural change
in the economy. In a cross-country study of water pollution abatement, Mani,
Hettige and Wheeler (2000) find that while some of the improvement in water
quality with increases in per capita income is attributable to sectoral composition
and technology effects, the main factor is stricter environmental regulation.
There appear to be three main reasons that richer countries regulate pollution
more strictly. First, pollution damage gets higher priority after society has com-
pleted basic investments in health and education. Second, higher-income societies
have more plentiful technical personnel and budgets for monitoring and enforce-
Figure 2
Air Pollution Regulation and Income Per Capita in 31 Countries
Source: Dasgupta, Mody, Roy and Wheeler (2001).
ment activities. Third, higher income and education empower local communities
to enforce higher environmental standards, whatever stance is taken by the national
government (Dasgupta and Wheeler, 1997; Pargal and Wheeler, 1996; Dean, 1999).
The result of these mutually reinforcing factors, as shown in Figure 2, is a very close
relationship between national pollution regulation and income per capita (Das-
gupta, Mody, Roy and Wheeler, 2001).
Economic Liberalization
During the past two decades, many countries have liberalized their economies
by reducing government subsidies, dismantling price controls, privatizing state
enterprises and removing barriers to trade and investment. Easterly (2001) pro-
vides strong evidence that measures of financial depth and price distortion have
improved significantly for developing countries since 1980. The result has been an
adjustment toward economic activities that reflect comparative advantage at undis-
torted factor and product prices, which in turn can affect the level of pollution in
an economy by shifting the sectoral composition.
One result has been growth of labor-intensive assembly activities such as
garment production. These activities are seldom pollution-intensive, although
there are some notable exceptions such as electronics assembly that employs toxic
cleaning solvents and fabric production that generates organic water pollution and
toxic pollution from chemical dyes (Hettige, Martin, Singh and Wheeler, 1995).
Another likely area of comparative advantage is information services with relatively
low skill requirements, such as records maintenance for internationally distributed
information-processing services. Such activities are typically not very polluting.
More environmentally sensitive areas of comparative advantage include large-scale
agriculture and production that exploits local natural resources such as forest
products, basic metals and chemicals (Lee and Roland-Holst, 1997). These indus-
tries are often heavy polluters, because they produce large volumes of waste
residuals and frequently employ toxic chemicals.
Elimination of government subsidies often has an environmentally beneficial
effect in this context. The heaviest polluters often receive subsidies, because they
operate in sectors such as steel and petrochemicals where state intervention has
been common. Privatization and reduction of subsidies tend to reduce the scale of
such activities, while expanding production in the assembly and service sectors that
emit fewer pollutants (Dasgupta, Wang and Wheeler, 1997; Lucas, Hettige and
Wheeler, 1992; Jha, Markandya and Vossenaar, 1999; Birdsall and Wheeler, 1993).
Elimination of energy subsidies increases energy efficiency, shifts industry away
from energy-intensive sectors, and reduces demand for pollution-intensive power
(Vukina, Beghin and Solakoglu, 1999; World Bank, 1999). However, higher energy
prices also induce shifts from capital- and energy-intensive production techniques
to labor- and materials-intensive techniques, which are often more pollution-
intensive in other ways (Mani, Hettige and Wheeler, 2000).
Economic liberalization also has a common effect, at least in pollution-
intensive sectors, of enlarging the market share of larger plants that operate at
more efficient scale (Wheeler, 2000; Hettige, Dasgupta and Wheeler, 2000). This
change often involves a shift toward publicly held firms at the expense of family
firms. The improvement in efficiency means less pollution per unit of production,
although larger plants may also concentrate pollution in a certain locality (Lucas,
Dasgupta and Wheeler, 2001). In China, state-owned enterprises have much higher
costs for reducing air pollution because they are operated less efficiently. Figure 3
displays recent econometric estimates of control costs for sulfur dioxide air pollu-
tion in large Chinese factories (Dasgupta, Wang and Wheeler, 1997).1
The level of polluting emissions also reflects managers’ technology decisions.
In the OECD countries, innovations have generated significantly cleaner technol-
ogies that are available at incremental cost to producers in developing countries.
Even in weakly regulated economies, many firms have adopted these cleaner
technologies because they are more profitable. Increased openness to trade also
tends to lower the price of cleaner imported technologies, while increasing the
competitive pressure to adopt them if they are also more efficient (Reppelin-Hill,
1999; Huq, Martin and Wheeler, 1993; Martin and Wheeler, 1992). Thus, firms in
relatively open developing economies adopt cleaner technologies more quickly
(Birdsall and Wheeler, 1993; Huq, Martin and Wheeler, 1993).
While liberalization can certainly improve environmental conditions, it is no
panacea. The evidence suggests that in a rapidly growing economy, the effect of
lower pollution per unit of output as a result of greater efficiency is generally
1
Xu, Gau, Dockery and Chen (1994) have shown that atmospheric sulfur dioxide concentrations are
highly correlated with damage from respiratory disease in China. Sulfur dioxide and other oxides of
sulfur combine with oxygen to form sulfates and with water vapor to form aerosols of sulfurous and
sulfuric acid. Much of the health damage from sulfur dioxide seems to come from fine particulates in
the form of sulfates.
Figure 3
Sulfur Dioxide Marginal Abatement Costs: Large Chinese Factories
Source: World Bank (1999).
overwhelmed by the rise in overall pollution as a result of rising output (Beghin,

Roland-Holst and van der Mensbrugghe, 1997; Dessus and Bussolo, 1998; Lee and
Roland-Holst, 1997). Thus, total pollution will grow unless environmental regula-
tion is strengthened (Mani, Hettige and Wheeler, 2000).
Pervasive Informal Regulation

Low-income communities frequently penalize dangerous polluters, even when
formal regulation is weak or absent. Abundant evidence from Asia and Latin
America shows that neighboring communities can strongly influence factories’
environmental performance (Pargal and Wheeler, 1996; Hettige, Huq, Pargal and
Wheeler, 1996; Huq and Wheeler, 1992; Hartman, Huq and Wheeler, 1997).
Where formal regulators are present, communities use the political process to
influence the strictness of enforcement. Where regulators are absent or ineffective,
nongovernmental organizations and community groups—including religious insti-
tutions, social organizations, citizens’ movements, and politicians—pursue infor-
mal regulation. Although these pressures vary from region to region, the pattern
everywhere is similar: Factories negotiate directly with local actors in response to
threats of social, political or physical sanctions if they fail to compensate the
community or to reduce emissions.
The response of factories can take many forms. Cribb (1990) cites the case of
a cement factory in Jakarta that—without admitting liability for the dust it
generates—“compensates local people with an ex gratia payment of Rp. 5000 and
a tin of evaporated milk every month.” Agarwal, Chopra and Sharma (1982)
describe a situation where, confronted by community complaints, a paper mill in
India installed pollution abatement equipment—and to compensate residents for
remaining damage, the mill also constructed a Hindu temple. If all else fails,
community action can also trigger physical removal of the problem. In Rio de
Janeiro, a neighborhood association protest against a polluting tannery led man-
agers to relocate it to the city’s outskirts (Stotz, 1991). Mark Clifford (1990) has
reported in the Far Eastern Economic Review that community action prevented the
opening of a chemical complex in Korea until appropriate pollution control
equipment was installed. Indeed, communities sometimes resort to extreme mea-
sures. Cribb (1990) has recounted an Indonesian incident “reported from Banjaran
near Jakarta in 1980 when local farmers burned a government-owned chemical
factory that had been polluting their irrigation channels.”
Such examples are not limited to developing countries, of course. They also
play an important role in the work of Coase (1960), who called traditional regula-
tion into question by noting that pollution victims, as well as regulators, can take
action if they perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs. Of course, the victims
need information about pollution risks to take appropriate action. In most cases,
such information can only be gathered by public authorities that have a legal
mandate to collect it. We will return to this issue in our discussion of public
disclosure as a new regulatory instrument in developing countries.
Pressure from Market Agents

Market agents can also play an important role in creating pressures for
environmental protection. Bankers may refuse to extend credit because they are
worried about environmental liability; consumers may avoid the products of firms
that are known to be heavy polluters.
The evidence suggests that multinational firms are important players in this
context. These firms operate under close scrutiny from consumers and environ-
mental organizations in the high-income economies. Investors also appear to play
an important role in encouraging clean production. Heavy emissions may signal to
investors that a firm’s production techniques are inefficient. Investors also weigh
potential financial losses from regulatory penalties and liability settlements. The
U.S. and Canadian stock markets react significantly to environmental news, gener-
ating gains from good news and losses from bad news in the range of 1–2 percent
(Muoghalu, Robison and Glascock, 1990; Lanoie and Laplante, 1994; Klassen and
McLaughlin, 1996; Hamilton, 1995; Lanoie, Laplante and Roy, 1998). One recent
study found that firms whose bad environmental press has the greatest impact on
stock prices subsequently reduce emissions the most (Konar and Cohen, 1997).
Similar effects of environmental news on stock prices have been identified in
Argentina, Chile, Mexico and the Philippines (Dasgupta, Laplante and Mamingi,
2001). In fact, the market responses in these countries are much larger than those
reported for U.S. and Canadian firms: Stock price gains average 20 percent in
response to good news and losses range from 4 –15 percent in the wake of bad news.
Multinationals have responded to such factors. A recent study of 89 U.S.-based
manufacturing and mining multinationals with branches in developing countries
found that nearly 60 percent adhere to a stringent internal standard that reflects
OECD norms, while the others enforce local standards (Dowell, Hart and Yeung,
2000). Controlling for other factors such as physical assets and capital structure, the
study found that firms with uniform internal standards had an average market value
$10.4 billion higher than their counterparts. Indeed, multinational firms operating
in low-income economies are often environmentally friendlier than domestically
owned firms. For example, a careful audit of Indonesian factories undertaken in

1995 found that almost 70 percent of domestic plants failed to comply with
Indonesian water pollution regulations, while around 80 percent of the multina-
tional plants were fully compliant (Afsah and Vincent, 1997).
Better Methods of Environmental Regulation

Poor countries with weak regulatory institutions can reduce pollution signifi-
cantly by following a few basic principles. The first is focus. In many areas, relatively
few sources are responsible for most of the pollution (Hettige, Martin, Singh and
Wheeler, 1995; World Bank, 1999). Therefore, emissions can be significantly
reduced by targeting regulatory monitoring and enforcement on those dominant
sources.
Notable inroads against pollution have also been made where environmental
agencies in developing countries have begun moving away from traditional
command-and-control policies toward market-oriented forms of regulation. Pollu-
tion charges have proven feasible in developing countries, with successful imple-
mentation in China (Wang and Wheeler, 1996), Colombia, Malaysia and Philip-
pines (World Bank, 1999). In Colombia, for example, the recent implementation
of water pollution charges in the Rio Negro Basin reduced organic discharges from
factories by 52 percent during the program’s first year of operation. No participat-
ing factory seems to have experienced financial difficulties in the process (World
Bank, 1999). A pollution charge program in the Laguna Bay region of Philippines
reduced organic pollution by 88 percent during its first two years of operation
(World Bank, 1999). Similar conclusions have emerged from studies of regulation
and control costs in Malaysia ( Jha, Markandya and Vossenaar, 1999; Khalid and
Braden, 1993).
Better Information
Until recently, relatively little was known about the economic damage associ-
ated with pollution in developing countries. During the past few years, however,
economic analyses have repeatedly shown that large cities in developing countries
suffer very high costs from pollution, even when damage is evaluated at conserva-
tive estimates of local opportunity costs (Dasgupta, Wang and Wheeler, 1997; Von
Amsberg, 1997; Calkins, 1994). Such evidence has induced rapid strengthening of
pollution control in the large cities of China, Brazil, Mexico and other developing
countries.
This improved information combines with pressures from citizens, govern-
ment, nongovernmental organizations and market agents to create pressures for
rapid enactment of stricter environmental regulations. Strong results have also
been obtained by programs that provide accessible public information about
polluters, pollution damages, local environmental quality and the cost of pollution
abatement. Such programs significantly improve the ability of local communities
to protect themselves, the ability of national regulators to enforce decent
environmental standards, and the ability of market agents to reward clean firms and
punish heavy polluters.
International institutions such as the World Bank have begun supporting this
idea in collaborative programs with environmental agencies in Indonesia, Philip-
pines, China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and elsewhere.2
In Indonesia and Philippines, pilot public disclosure programs have reduced
emissions from hundreds of large water polluters by 40 –50 percent during a
two-year period (Afsah and Vincent, 1997; World Bank, 1999). After the success of
a pilot public disclosure program in two Chinese cities, the approach is now being
extended to an entire province, Jiangsu, with a population of approximately 100
million.
Cautionary Notes
In light of recent research and policy experience, the most plausible long-run
forecast is for rising, not falling, environmental quality in both high- and low-
income economies. Indeed, it is likely that the environmental Kuznets curve has
begun to flatten downward under the combined impact of economic liberalization,
improved information, and more stringent and cost-effective approaches to regu-
lating pollution under developing-country conditions. But although we are san-
guine about the prospects for combining economic growth and environmental
protection, we remain cautious optimists. At least four plausible concerns have
been raised.
Will Countries Need to Suffer Lower Environmental Quality in the Short and
Medium Run?
The conventional environmental Kuznets curve implies that vast areas of the
world—including much of Asia and Africa—will have to experience rising pollution
levels until their per capita incomes rise significantly. However, there is no evidence
to support the view that this would be economically advantageous. Several benefit-
cost analyses have made a persuasive case for stricter pollution control, even in very
low income economies. In China, for example, a recent study has shown that the
economic returns to pollution abatement would justify significant tightening of
regulation (Dasgupta, Wang and Wheeler, 1997). Studies in Indonesia (Calkins,
1994) and Brazil (Von Amsberg, 1997) have produced similar conclusions.
Countries whose economic policies induce a rapid expansion of income and
employment may experience severe environmental damage unless appropriate
environmental regulations are enacted and enforced. Economic analysis can be
employed to justify environmental regulatory policies that result in a flatter and
lower environmental Kuznets curve.
2
For more information about these programs, see the World Bank’s “New Ideas in Pollution Regula-
tion” website at 具http://www.worldbank.org/nipr典.
Globalization and the Risk of a Race to the Bottom

Perhaps the most commonly heard critique of the environmental Kuznets
curve is that even if such a relationship existed in the past, it is unlikely to exist in
the future because of the pressures that global competition places on environmen-
tal regulations. In the “race to the bottom” scenario, relatively high environmental
standards in high-income economies impose high costs on polluters. Shareholders
then drive firms to relocate to low-income countries, whose people are so eager for
jobs and income that their environmental regulations are weak or nonexistent.
Rising capital outflows force governments in high-income countries to begin relax-
ing environmental standards. As the ensuing race to the bottom accelerates, the
environmental Kuznets curve flattens and rises toward the highest existing level of
pollution.
In the United States, political opponents of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) frequently invoke elements of this model. For example, Congressman
David Bonior (1999) offered the following critique: “The WTO, as currently
structured, threatens to undo internationally everything we have achieved nation-
ally— every environmental protection, every consumer safeguard, every labor vic-
tory.” Herman Daly (2000), an economist at the University of Maryland’s School of
Public Affairs, has recently provided a forceful statement of the race to the bottom
model.
Proponents of this model often recommend high environmental standards
that would be uniform around the world. For countries that are unwilling or unable
to enforce such standards, tariffs or other restrictions and penalties would be
imposed on exports of their pollution-intensive products to neutralize their cost
advantage as “pollution havens.” Proponents of free trade naturally view these
prescriptions as anathema, arguing that their main impact would be denial of jobs
and income to the world’s poorest people.
The race to the bottom model has an air of plausibility. It does appear that
polluting activities in high-income economies face higher regulatory costs than
their counterparts in developing countries (Jaffe, Peterson, Portney and Stavins,
1995; Mani and Wheeler, 1998). This creates an incentive for at least some highly
polluting industries to relocate. But how substantial is this incentive compared to
the other location incentives faced by businesses? To what extent have countries
actually been reducing their environmental standards to provide such location
incentives?
Research in both high- and low-income countries suggests that pollution
control does not impose high costs on business firms. Jaffe, Peterson, Portney and
Stavins (1995) and others have shown that compliance costs for OECD industries
are surprisingly small, despite the use of command-and-control regulations that are
economically inefficient. Firms in developing countries frequently have even lower
abatement costs, because the labor and materials used for pollution control are less
costly than in the OECD economies.
Numerous studies have suggested that, in comparison with other factors
considered by businesses, pollution-control costs are not major determinants of
relocation (Eskeland and Harrison, 1997; Albrecht, 1998; Levinson, 1997; Van
Beers and van den Bergh, 1997; Tobey, 1990, Janicke, Binder and Monch, 1997).
More important factors include distance to market and infrastructure quality and
cost (Mody and Wheeler, 1992). In a study of Mexican maquiladora plants, Gross-
man and Krueger (1993) found that pollution abatement costs were not a major
determinant of imports from Mexico, while their unskilled labor component was of
paramount importance. Most OECD-based multinationals maintain nearly uniform
environmental standards in their national and international plants. They do so to
realize economies in engineering standards for design, equipment purchases and
maintenance; to reduce potential liability from regulatory action; and to guard
against reputational damage in local and international markets (Dowell, Hart and
Yeung, 2000).
In fairness, the evidence also suggests that pollution havens can emerge in
extreme cases (Xing and Kolstad, 1995). During the 1970s, for example, environ-
mental regulation tightened dramatically in the OECD economies with no coun-
tervailing change in developing countries. The regulatory cost differential was
apparently sufficient to generate a significant surge in production and exports of
pollution-intensive products from developing countries. Since then, however, reg-
ulatory changes in the developing countries have narrowed the gap and apparently
stopped the net migration of polluting industries (Mani and Wheeler, 1998). This
pattern of tighter environmental regulations in low-income countries runs counter
to the “race to the bottom” scenario.
Indeed, the scenario in which more heavily polluting industries locate in
low-income countries and export back to high-income countries appears to be an
incorrect description of actual patterns. In recent times, developing country im-
ports from high-income economies have been more pollution-intensive than their
exports to those economies (Mani and Wheeler, 1998; Albrecht, 1998).
In short, there are many reasons to be dubious about the race to the bottom
model. But perhaps the most powerful challenge to the model is a direct
assessment of its simple and robust prediction: After decades of increasing
capital mobility and economic liberalization, the race to the bottom should
already be underway and pollution should be increasing everywhere. It
should be rising in poor countries because they are pollution havens, and in
high-income economies because they are relaxing standards to remain cost-
competitive. Wheeler (2001) has tested these propositions using data on foreign
investment and urban air quality in China, Mexico and Brazil. Together, these
three countries received 60 percent of the total foreign direct investment for
developing countries in 1998. If the race to the bottom model is correct, then
air pollution should be rising in all three countries. Moreover, air quality should
be deteriorating in U.S. cities, since U.S. industrial imports from all three
countries have been expanding for decades.
As Figures 4 and 5 indicate, the converse is true: Instead of racing toward the
bottom, major urban areas in China, Brazil, Mexico and the United States have all
experienced significant improvements in air quality, as measured by concentrations
Figure 4
Foreign Investment and Air Pollution in China, Mexico and Brazil
Notes: SPM is suspended particulate matter. FDI is foreign direct investment.
Notes: SPM is suspended particulate matter. FDI is foreign direct investment.
Notes: PM-10 is suspended particulates less than ten microns in diameter. FDI is foreign direct
investment.
Source: Wheeler (2001).
of fine particulate matter (PM-10) or suspended particulate matter (SPM). Further

research is necessary before any definitive conclusions can be drawn, because
similar comparisons are currently unavailable for other pollutants. At present,
Figure 5
Air Pollution in US Metropolitan Areas, 1988 –1997
Source: Wheeler (2001).
however, the available evidence strongly suggests that the pessimism of the race to
the bottom model is unwarranted.
Are Other Pollutants Rising? The Case of Toxic Chemicals

Even if one accepts the evidence that growth in per capita income can be
accompanied by reductions in well-known conventional pollutants, there is still a
question about whether other less-known pollutants and environmental hazards
may be rising with levels of per capita income.
One recent focus has been on emissions of toxic organic chemicals into the air
and water. Although some toxic chemicals are monitored in some industrialized
countries, they remain largely unregulated almost everywhere. Thornton (2000)
argues that conventional regulation has failed to control the proliferation of
organic chlorine compounds that are carcinogenic and mutagenic. He recom-
mends banning the whole family of chlorine compounds, which would be econom-
ically disruptive, to put it mildly. The international community has begun respond-
ing to such thinking for some “persistent” organic pollutants that are among the
organochlorines known to be most dangerous, because they accumulate in plant
and animal life. In May 2001, 127 countries signed a treaty to ban international
production and trade in twelve persistent organic pollutants, including PCBs,
dioxins, DDT and other pesticides that have been shown to contribute to birth
defects and cancer (“U.N. Treaty on Chemicals,” 2001).
Such concerns raise the possibility that economic development will always be
accompanied by environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated
by the use of new materials and technologies. If this proves to be the case, the
recent treaty banning production and sale of persistent organic pollutants may be
a harbinger of broader regulatory changes that will affect both developed and
developing countries.
This issue provides a useful reminder that our understanding of environmen-
tal problems and remedies must develop over time. It seems unlikely that address-
ing pollution from organochlorines and other toxics will require measures as
radical as those suggested by Thornton (2000). However, it will clearly be inappro-
priate to declare conventional environmental protection a success if it reduces a
limited list of conventional pollutants while ignoring an ever-growing list of toxic
pollutants that may pose threats to future generations as well as this one.
Building Regulatory Capability

If per capita income and environmental quality are to increase together,
developing countries will require effective regulatory capabilities. These capabili-
ties include not only appropriate legal measures for regulation, but also effective
monitoring and enforcement of regulatory compliance. Better environmental gov-
ernance, broadly understood, involves the enactment of liberalizing economic
measures that affect pollution through their impact on an economy’s sectoral
composition and efficiency. It also includes the capability to develop and dissemi-
nate information about environmental quality and pollution sources, even if such
information may embarrass certain government officials in the short run. Much of
the pessimism about the prospects for environmental quality in developing coun-
tries is not about whether a win-win outcome is technically possible for the economy
and the environment, but whether these societies have the institutional capabilities
necessary for achieving such an outcome.
The evidence on how regulatory capability can be developed is sparse, but the
World Bank’s indicators of institutional and policy development provide grounds
for moderate optimism. It appears that productive public policy is correlated with
economic development— but that there is considerable variation in the relation-
ship. Some excellent economic performers have quite poor regulatory capability by
international standards. In turn, general policy indicators predict environmental
policy performance very well, but some countries with low overall policy ratings
have proven capable of focused efforts to protect critical environmental assets. The
most pronounced outliers are mostly countries where specific natural resources are
important determinants of tourist revenue, such as Maldives, Seychelles, Belize,
Ecuador and Bhutan. Apparently, even poorly administered societies can
strengthen regulation when environmental damage is clear, costly, and concen-
trated in a few sites. But these exceptions aside, it seems unlikely that broader
environmental regulation will outpace more general institutional reform. A full
response to the environmental challenge of globalization will therefore require
serious attention to long-run development of public sector administrative and
decision-making capacity.
Sustaining effective environmental regulation will also require the design of
appropriate financing mechanisms, some of which may depart from theoretically
optimal measures under the conditions that prevail in developing countries. For
example, Colombia’s successful pollution charge program became politically fea-
sible only after regulators, industrialists, and public sewerage authorities agreed to
use part of the revenues to support local regulatory agencies and to invest the rest
in local environmental projects. Although traditional public finance theory does
not support earmarking revenues in this way, rather than balancing costs and
benefits of all spending choices, the program’s results have clearly compensated for
this conceptual flaw. Local financing may also prove to be critical during future
recessions, when Colombia’s central government may reduce support for national
monitoring and enforcement of regulations. However, accepting political reality
does not imply uncritical acceptance of any funding scheme. The designers of
Colombia’s system have stressed the application of clear benefit-cost criteria to local
financing of pollution reduction projects.
International Assistance
We believe that the international community can play a valuable role in

lowering and flattening the environmental Kuznets curve by financing appropriate
training, policy reforms, information gathering and public environmental educa-
tion. In our view, a steadily accumulating body of research and program experience
suggests two keys to rapid progress on this front. The first is support for programs
that provide public, easily accessible information about polluters, pollution dam-
ages, local environmental quality and the cost of pollution abatement. The second
is support for development of stronger regulatory institutions and cost-effective
measures to reduce pollution. Sustained support is critical, because institutional
development takes time.
We also believe that trade and aid sanctions are inappropriate and ineffective
levers for narrowing the regulatory gap between low- and high-income countries.
Such sanctions are unjust because they penalize both poor workers and the many
firms in developing countries that have excellent environmental performance
despite weak regulation (Huq and Wheeler, 1992; Hartman, Huq and Wheeler,
1997; Afsah and Vincent, 1997; World Bank, 1999). In any case, weak regulatory
institutions would prevent governments of low-income countries from delivering
on promises of OECD-level regulation, even if they were willing to make them. A
similar caveat applies to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, whose
operating rules now mandate accounting for environmental risks in economic
reform programs. While it is important to avoid serious pollution damage during
rapid liberalization, it is also critical to support carefully targeted pollution control
programs whose long-run resource requirements are feasible for the recipient
countries.
y Particular thanks to David Shaman and Yasmin D’Souza for their support, and to Shakeb
Afsah, Hemamala Hettige, Mainul Huq, Muthukumara Mani, Craig Meisner, Kiran
Pendey and Sheoli Pargal for valuable contributions to the research and policy initiatives
reviewed in this paper. Thanks also to Timothy Taylor, Alan Krueger, Brad De Long and
Michael Waldman for valuable comments on an earlier draft.
References
Afsah, S. and J. Vincent. 1997. “Putting Pres- Clifford, M. 1990. “Kicking up a Stink: South
sure on Polluters: Indonesia’s PROPER Pro- Korean Government Reels from Anti-Pollution
gram.” Case study for the HIID 1997 Asia Envi- Backlash.” Far Eastern Economic Review. October
ronmental Economics Policy Seminar. Harvard 18, pp. 72–3.
Institute for International Development, March. Coase, R. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost.”
Agarwal, A., R. Chopra, and K. Sharma. 1982. Journal of Law and Economics. October, 3, pp.
The State of India’s Environment 1982. New Delhi, 1– 44.
India: Centre for Science and Environment. Cribb, R. 1990. “The Politics of Pollution Con-
Albrecht, J. 1998. “Environmental Policy and trol in Indonesia.” Asian Survey. 30, pp. 1123–35.
Inward Investment Position of U.S. Dirty Indus- Daly, H. 2000. “Globalization.” Presented at
tries.” Intereconomics. July/August, pp. 186 –94. the 50th Anniversary Conference of the Aspen
Beghin J., D. Roland-Holst, and D. van der Institute. Aspen, Colorado, August.
Mensbrugghe. 1997. “Trade and Environment Dasgupta, S., B. Laplante and N. Mamingi.
Linkages: Piecemeal Reform and Optimal Inter- 2001. “Capital Market Responses to Environ-
vention.” Canadian Journal of Economics. 30:2, pp. mental Performance in Developing Countries.”
442–55. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
Birdsall, N. and D. Wheeler. 1993. “Trade Pol- ment. Forthcoming.
icy and Industrial Pollution in Latin America: Dasgupta, S., B. Laplante and C. Meisner.
Where are the Pollution Havens?” Journal of En- 2001. “Accounting for Toxicity Risks in Pollution
vironment and Development. Winter, 2:1, pp. 137– Control: Does It Matter?” Journal of Environmen-
49. tal Management. Forthcoming.
Bolt, K., K. Hamilton, K. Pandey and D. Dasgupta, S., A. Mody, S. Roy and D. Wheeler.
Wheeler. 2001. “The Cost of Air Pollution in 2001. “Environmental Regulation and Develop-
Developing Countries: New Estimates for Urban ment: A Cross-Country Empirical Analysis.” Ox-
Areas.” World Bank Development Research ford Development Studies. June, 29:2, pp. 173– 87.
Group Working Paper, forthcoming. Dasgupta, S., H. Wang and D. Wheeler. 1997.
Bonior, D. 1999. “Defending Democracy in “Surviving Success: Policy Reform and the Fu-
the New Global Economy.” Statement to an ture of Industrial Pollution in China.” World
AFL-CIO conference on workers’ rights, trade Bank Policy Research Department Working Pa-
development, and the WTO. Seattle, Washing- per No. 1856, October.
ton, December. Dasgupta, S. and D. Wheeler. 1997. “Citizen
Calkins, R. 1994. Indonesia: Environment and Complaints as Environmental Indicators: Evi-
Development. Washington: World Bank. dence from China.” World Bank, Policy Re-
CETESB. 1986. “Restoring the Serra do Mar.” search Department Working Paper No. 1704,
São Paulo: Companhia de Tecnologia de Sanea- January.
mento Ambiental (CETESB). De Bruyn, S. M. 1997. “Explaining the Envi-
CETESB. 1990. “ Cubatão: A Change of Air.” ronmental Kuznets Curve: Structural Change
São Paulo: Companhia de Tecnologia de Sanea- and International Agreements in Reducing Sul-
mento Ambiental (CETESB). phur Emissions.” Environment and Development
CETESB. 1994. “Acao da CETESB em Cu- Economics. 2:4, pp. 485–503.
batão: Situacao em Junho de 1994.” São Paulo: De Bruyn, S. M., J. C. J. M. van den Bergh and
Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Am- J. B. Opschoor. 1998. “Economic Growth and
biental (CETESB). Emissions: Reconsidering the Empirical Basis of
Environmental Kuznets Curves.” Ecological Eco- of Environmental Economics and Management. 39:1,
nomics. 25:2, pp. 161–75. pp. 39 – 66.
Dean, J. M. 1999. “Testing the Impact of Huq, M., P. Martin and D. Wheeler. 1993.
Trade Liberalization on the Environment: The- “Process Change, Economic Policy, and Indus-
ory and Evidence,” in Trade, Global Policy and the trial Pollution: Cross Country Evidence from the
Environment. P. Fredriksson, ed. Washington, Wood Pulp and Steel Industries.” Presented at
D.C.: World Bank, pp. 55– 63. the Annual Meetings, American Economic Asso-
Dessus, S. and M. Bussolo. 1998. “Is There a ciation, Anaheim, California, January.
Trade-Off Between Trade Liberalization and Huq, M. and D. Wheeler. 1992. “Pollution
Pollution Abatement? A Computable General Reduction Without Formal Regulation: Evi-
Equilibrium Assessment Applied to Costa Rica.” dence from Bangladesh.” World Bank Environ-
Journal of Policy Modeling. 20:1, pp. 11–31. ment Department Working Paper No. 1993-39.
Dowell, G., S. Hart and B. Yeung. 2000. “Do Jaffe, A., S. Peterson, P. Portney, and R.
Corporate Global Environmental Standards Cre- Stavins. 1995. “Environmental Regulation and
ate or Destroy Market Value?” Management Sci- the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing:
ence. August, 46:8, pp. 1059 –74. What Does the Evidence Tell Us?” Journal of
Easterly, W. 2001. “The Lost Decades: Devel- Economic Literature. 33:1, pp. 132– 63.
oping Countries’ Stagnation in Spite of Policy Janicke, M., M. Binder and H. Monch. 1997.
Reform 1980 –1998.” Journal of Economic Growth. “‘Dirty Industries’: Patterns of Change in Indus-
June, 6:2, pp. 135–57. Available in draft online at trial Countries.” Environmental and Resource Eco-
具http://www.worldbank.org/research/growth/ nomics. 9:4, pp. 467–91.
padate.htm典. Jha, V., A. Markandya and R. Vossenaar. 1999.
Eskeland, G. and A. Harrison. 1997. “Moving Reconciling Trade and the Environment: Lessons from
to Greener Pastures? Multinationals and the Pol- Case Studies in Developing Countries. Northamp-
lution-Haven Hypothesis.” World Bank Policy ton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing Co.
Research Department Working Paper No. 1744. John, A. and R. Pecchenino. 1994. “An Over-
Grossman, G. and A. Krueger. 1993. “Environ- lapping Generations Model of Growth and the
mental Impacts of the North American Free Environment.” Economic Journal. November, 104,
Trade Agreement,” in The U.S.-Mexico Free Trade pp. 1393– 410.
Agreement. P. Garber, ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, John, A. R. Pecchenino, D. Schimmelpfennig
pp. 13–56. and S. Schreft. 1995. “Short-Lived Agents and
Hamilton, J. 1995. “Pollution as News: Media the Long-Lived Environment.” Journal of Public
and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxic Release Economics. 58:1, pp. 127– 41.
Inventory Data.” Journal of Environmental Econom- Khalid, R. and J. B. Braden. 1993. “Welfare
ics and Management. 28:1, pp. 98 –113. Effects of Environmental Regulation in an Open
Hartman, R., M. Huq and D. Wheeler. 1997. Economy: The Case of Malaysian Palm Oil.” Jour-
“Why Paper Mills Clean Up: Determinants of nal of Agricultural Economics. January, 44, pp. 25–
Pollution Abatement in Four Asian Countries.” 37.
World Bank, Policy Research Department Work- Klassen, R. D. and C. P. McLaughlin. 1996.
ing Paper No. 1710. “The Impact of Environmental Management on
Hettige, H., M. Huq, S. Pargal and D. Firm Performance.” Management Science. 42:8,
Wheeler. 1996. “Determinants of Pollution pp. 1199 –214.
Abatement in Developing Countries: Evidence Konar, S. and M. Cohen. 1997. “Information
from South and Southeast Asia.” World Develop- as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right
ment. 24:12, pp. 1891–904. to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions.” Journal of
Hettige, M. and D. Wheeler. 1996. “An Envi- Environmental Economics and Management. Janu-
ronmental Performance Analysis System for In- ary, 32, pp. 109 –24.
dustrial Plants in Mexico.” Development Re- Lanoie, P. and B. Laplante. 1994. “The Market
search Group, World Bank, Washington, D.C., Response to Environmental Incidents in Can-
mimeo. ada: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.”
Hettige, H., P. Martin, M. Singh and D. Southern Economic Journal. 60, pp. 657–72.
Wheeler. 1995. “IPPS: The Industrial Pollution Laplante, B. and K. Smits. 1998. “Estimating
Projection System.” World Bank, Policy Re- Industrial Pollution in Latvia.” ECSSD Rural De-
search Department Working Paper No. 1431. velopment and Environment Sector, Working
Hettige, M., S. Dasgupta and D. Wheeler. Paper 4, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.,
2000. “What Improves Environmental Compli- mimeo.
ance? Evidence From Mexican Industry.” Journal Lanoie, P., B. Laplante and M. Roy. 1998.
“Can Capital Markets Create Incentives for Pol- U.S. Firms.” Journal of International Economics. 3,
lution Control?” Ecological Economics. July, 26, pp. pp. 57–76.
31– 41. Muoghalu, M., D. Robison and J. Glascock.
Lee, H. and D. Roland-Holst. 1997. “The En- 1990. “Hazardous Waste Lawsuits, Stockholder
vironment and Welfare Implications of Trade Returns, and Deterrence.” Southern Economic
and Tax Policy.” Journal of Development Economics. Journal. October, 57, pp. 357–70.
February, 52, pp. 65– 82. Panayotou, T. 1997. “Demystifying the Envi-
Levinson, A. 1997. “Environmental Regula- ronmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a Black Box
tions and Industry Location: International and into a Policy Tool.” Environment and Development
Domestic Evidence,” in Fair Trade and Harmoni- Economics. 2:4, pp. 465– 84.
zation: Prerequisites for Free Trade? J. N. Bhagwati Pargal, S. and D. Wheeler. 1996. “Informal
and R. E. Hudec, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press, Regulation of Industrial Pollution in Developing
pp. 429 –58. Countries: Evidence From Indonesia.” Journal of
López, R. 1994. “The Environment as a Factor Political Economy. 104:6, pp. 1314 –27.
of Production: The Effects of Economic Growth Reppelin-Hill, V. 1999. “Trade and Environ-
and Trade Liberalization.” Journal of Environmen- ment: An Empirical Analysis of the Technology
tal Economics and Management. 27:2, pp. 163– 84. Effect in the Steel Industry.” Journal of Environ-
López, R. and S. Mitra. 2000. “Corruption, mental Economics and Management. 38:3, pp. 283–
Pollution, and the Kuznets Environment Curve.” 301.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage- Samet, J., F. Dominici, F. Curriero, I. Coursac
ment. 40:2, pp. 137–50. and S. Zeger. 2000. “Fine Particulate Air Pollu-
Lucas, R., H. Hettige and D. Wheeler. 1992. tion and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities, 1987–1994.”
“The Toxic Intensity of Industrial Production: New England Journal of Medicine. 343:24, pp.
Global Patterns, Trends, and Trade Policy.” 1742– 49.
American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. Selden, T. and D. Song. 1994. “Environmental
May, 82:2, pp. 478 – 81. Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets
Lucas, R., S. Dasgupta and D. Wheeler. 2001. Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?” Journal of
“Plant Size, Industrial Air Pollution and Local Environmental Economics and Management. 27:2,
Incomes: Evidence from Brazil and Mexico.” En- pp. 147– 62.
vironment and Development Economics. Forthcom- Selden, T. and D. Song. 1995. “Neoclassical
ing. Growth, the J Curve for Abatement, and the
Mani, M. S. and D. Wheeler. 1998. “In Search Inverted U Curve for Pollution.” Journal of Envi-
of Pollution Havens? Dirty Industry in the World ronmental Economics and Management. 29:2, pp.
Economy, 1960 –1995.” Journal of Environment 162– 68.
and Development. September, 7:3, pp. 215– 47. Stern, D. I. 1998. “Progress on the Environ-
Mani, M., H. Hettige and D. Wheeler. 2000. mental Kuznets Curve?” Environment and Develop-
“Industrial Pollution in Economic Development: ment Economics. 3:2, pp. 175–98.
The Environmental Kuznets Curve Revisited.” Stern, D. I., A. Auld, M. S. Common and K. K.
Journal of Development Economics. 2:2, pp. 445–76. Sanyal. 1998. “Is There an Environmental
Marland, G., T. Boden and R. Andres. 2001. Kuznets Curve for Sulfur?” Working Papers in
“Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Ecological Economics, 9804, Center for Re-
Emissions.” Carbon Dioxide Information Analy- source and Environmental Studies, Australian
sis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. National University, Canberra.
Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Stotz, E. 1991. “Luta Pela Saude Ambiental: A
(available online at 具http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ AMAP Contra Cortume Carioca, S.A., Una Ex-
trends/ emis/meth_reg.htm典). periencia Vitoriosa,” V. V. Valla and E. N. Stotz,
Martin, P. and D. Wheeler. 1992. “Prices, Pol- eds. Participacao Popular, Educacao e Saude,
icies, and the International Diffusion of Clean Rio de Janeiro, pp. 133– 60.
Technology: The Case of Wood Pulp Produc- Thornton, J. 2000. Pandora’s Poison: Chlorine,
tion,” in International Trade and the Environment. Health, and a New Environmental Strategy. Cam-
Patrick Low, ed. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, bridge: MIT Press.
pp. 197–224. Tobey, J. A. 1990. “The Effects of Domestic
McConnell, K. E. 1997. “Income and the De- Environmental Policies on Patterns of World
mand for Environmental Quality.” Environment Trade: An Empirical Test.” Kyklos. 43:2, pp. 191–
and Development Economics. 2:4, pp. 383–99. 209.
Mody, A. and D. Wheeler. 1992. “Internation- “U.N. Treaty On Chemicals Is Approved.”
al Investment Location Decisions: The Case of 2001. Washington Post. May 23, Page A30.
Van Beers, C. and J. C. J. M. Van den Bergh. Foreign Investment and Air Pollution in Devel-
1997. “An Empirical Multi-Country Analysis of oping Countries.” World Bank Development Re-
the Impact of Environmental Regulations on search Group Working Paper No. 2524.
Trade Flows.” Kyklos. 50:1, pp. 29 – 46. Wheeler, D. 2001. “Racing to the Bottom?
Von Amsberg, J. 1997. “Brazil: Managing Pol- Foreign Investment and Air Pollution in Devel-
lution Problems, The Brown Environmental oping Countries.” Journal of Environment and De-
Agenda.” World Bank Report #16635-BR, June. velopment. 10:3, pp. 225– 45.
Vukina, T., J. C. Beghin and E. G. Solakoglu. World Bank. 1999. Greening Industry: New Roles
1999. “Transition to Markets and the Environ- for Communities, Markets and Governments. New
ment: Effects of the Change in the Composition
York: Oxford/World Bank.
of Manufacturing Output.” Environment and De-
World Bank. 2000. World Development Indica-
velopment Economics. 4:4, pp. 582–98.
tors. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Wang, H. and D. Wheeler. 1996. “Pricing In-
Xing, Y. and C. Kolstad. 1995. “Do Lax Envi-
dustrial Pollution in China: An Econometric
Analysis of the Levy System.” World Bank, Policy ronmental Regulations Attract Foreign Invest-
Research Department Working Paper No. 1644. ments?” University of California, Santa Barbara,
Wheeler, D. 1997. “Information in Pollution Working Papers in Economics: 06/95, May.
Management: The New Model,” in “Brazil: Man- Xu, X., J. Gao, D. Dockery and Y. Chen. 1994.
aging Pollution Problems, The Brown Environ- “Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in Residential
mental Agenda.” World Bank Report. Areas of Beijing, China.” Archives of Environmen-
Wheeler, D. 2000. “Racing to the Bottom? tal Health. 49:4, pp. 216 –22.
This article has been cited by:
1. Zhikang Bao, Weisheng Lu. 2023. Applicability of the environmental Kuznets curve to construction
waste management: A panel analysis of 27 European economies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
188, 106667. [Crossref]
2. Jie Xie, Mingying Zhu. 2022. What are the economic concerns on environment? Mapping the research
trends and frontiers on air pollution and health. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 35:1,
5070-5096. [Crossref]
3. Dandan Dou, Liying Li. 2022. Does sustainable financial inclusion and energy efficiency ensure green
environment? Evidence from B.R.I.C.S. countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 35:1,
5599-5614. [Crossref]
4. Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie, Maruf Yakubu Ahmed, Phebe Asantewaa Owusu. 2022. Global adaptation
readiness and income mitigate sectoral climate change vulnerabilities. Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications 9:1. . [Crossref]
5. Feng Mao, Joshua D. Miller, Sera L. Young, Stefan Krause, David M. Hannah, Alexandra Brewis,
Alex Trowell, Amber L. Pearson, Amber Wutich, Andrea Sullivan, Asher Y. Rosinger, Ashley
Hagaman, Cassandra Workman, Chad Staddon, Desire Tshala-Katumbay, Divya Krishnakumar,
Ellis Adams, Ernesto C. Sánchez-Rodriguez, Genny Carrillo, Gershim Asiki, Hala Ghattas, Hassan
Eini-Zinab, Hugo Melgar-Quiñonez, Farooq Ahmed, Javier Moran-Martinez, Jonathan Maupin,
Jorge Escobar-Vargas, Justin Stoler, Jyoti Mathad, Kelly Chapman, Kenneth Maes, Luisa Samayoa-
Figueroa, Mahdieh Sheikhi, Mallika Alexander, Marianne V. Santoso, Matthew C. Freeman, Michael
J. Boivin, Milton Marin Morales, Mobolanle Balogun, Monet Ghorbani, Nasrin Omidvar, Nathaly
Triviño, Nicola Hawley, Patrick Mbullo Owuor, Raymond Tutu, Roseanne C. Schuster, Sabrina
Rasheed, Shalean M. Collins, Sonali Srivastava, Stroma Cole, Wendy Jepson, Yihenew Tesfaye, Zeina
Jamaluddine. 2022. Inequality of household water security follows a Development Kuznets Curve.
Nature Communications 13:1. . [Crossref]
6. Eric B. Yiadom, Lord Mensah, Godfred A. Bokpin. 2022. Environmental Risk and Foreign Direct
Investment: the role of Financial Sector Development. Environmental Challenges 9, 100611. [Crossref]
7. Jesús Peiró-Palomino, Ernesto Rodríguez-Crespo, Marta Suárez-Varela. 2022. Do countries with
higher institutional quality transition to cleaner trade?. Ecological Economics 201, 107554. [Crossref]
8. Raghavendra Chandrika, Rampilla Mahesh, Naliniprava Tripathy. 2022. Is India a pollution haven?
Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 376, 134355.
[Crossref]
9. Simona-Roxana Ulman, Costica Mihai, Cristina Cautisanu, Ioan-Sebastian Brumă, Oana Coca, Gavril
Stefan. 2022. Environmental wellbeing in the context of sustainable development: Evidence from post-
communist economies. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10. . [Crossref]
10. Change Kuang, Wenhui Yu, Yong Yin, Dongchu Han, Shiyin Li, Jinsong Kuang. 2022. Heterogeneity
environmental regulation and provincial haze pollution in China: an empirical study based on threshold
model. Environment, Development and Sustainability 13. . [Crossref]
11. Belinda L. Del Gaudio, Daniele Previtali, Gabriele Sampagnaro, Vincenzo Verdoliva, Samuel Vigne.
2022. Syndicated green lending and lead bank performance. Journal of International Financial
Management & Accounting 33:3, 412-427. [Crossref]
12. Yunwei Li, Qiuping Ji, Zijie Wang, Zishan Xiong, Simeng Zhan, Yiping Yang, Yu Hao. 2022. Green
energy mismatch, industrial intelligence and economics growth: theory and empirical evidence from
China. Environment, Development and Sustainability 24:10, 11785-11816. [Crossref]
13. Qi Yang, Zhonggen Sun, Hubiao Zhang. 2022. Assessment of Urban Green Development Efficiency
Based on Three-Stage DEA: A Case Study from China’s Yangtze River Delta. Sustainability 14:19,
12076. [Crossref]
14. Li Jian, Kong Chuimin, Zhang Jijian, Kong Yusheng, Albert Henry Ntarmah. 2022. The relationship
between economic growth and environmental degradation: could West African countries benefit from
EKC hypothesis?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29:48, 73052-73070. [Crossref]
15. Sevginaz IŞIK. 2022. The Myth of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Second Generation Panel
Approach for MIST Countries. Alanya Akademik Bakış 6:3, 3199-3214. [Crossref]
16. René Augusto Marín-Leyva, América I. Zamora-Torres, Carlos Francisco Ortiz-Paniagua. 2022.
Economía, energía y calidad ambiental en APEC, 1990-2018. Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas
17:4, 1-19. [Crossref]
17. Mohsin Shabir, Abid Rashid Gill, Minhaj Ali. 2022. The impact of transport energy consumption
and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in ASEAN countries. Frontiers in Energy Research
10. . [Crossref]
18. Joanna Stryjek. 2022. Od dyrektyw w sprawie jakości powietrza do Europejskiego Zielonego Ładu.
Sprawy Międzynarodowe 74:3, 111-129. [Crossref]
19. Mukut Sikder, Chao Wang, Xiaoxia Yao, Xu Huai, Limin Wu, Frederick KwameYeboah, Jacob Wood,
Yuelin Zhao, Xuecheng Dou. 2022. The integrated impact of GDP growth, industrialization, energy
use, and urbanization on CO2 emissions in developing countries: Evidence from the panel ARDL
approach. Science of The Total Environment 837, 155795. [Crossref]
20. Cengiz Aytun, Cemil Serhat Akin. 2022. Can education lower the environmental degradation?
Bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis for emerging countries. Environment, Development and
Sustainability 24:9, 10666-10694. [Crossref]
21. Tobias Böhmelt. 2022. Environmental-agreement design and political ideology in democracies.
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 22:3, 507-525. [Crossref]
22. Zhe Yang, Zhenwu Xiong, Wenhao Xue, Yuhong Zhou. 2022. The Impact of Pollution Fee Reform on
the Emission of Water Pollutants: Evidence from Manufacturing Enterprises in China. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19:17, 10660. [Crossref]
23. Yifei Zhang, Yiwei Wang, Ye Jiang. 2022. Environmental Regulation, Local Government Competition,
and High-Quality Development—Based on Panel Data of 78 Prefecture-Level Cities in the Yellow
River Basin of China. Water 14:17, 2672. [Crossref]
24. Yunpeng Sun, Hafiz Waqas Kamran, Asif Razzaq, Faisal Sultan Qadri, Wanich Suksatan. 2022.
Dynamic and causality linkages from transportation services and tourism development to economic
growth and carbon emissions: New insights from Quantile ARDL approach. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 18:5, 1272-1287. [Crossref]
25. Noman Arshed, Kamran Hameed, Asma Saher, Naveed Yazdani. 2022. The cultural differences in the
effects of carbon emissions — an EKC analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29:42,
63605-63621. [Crossref]
26. Xuemei Zhang, Haitao Yin, Huimin Yang. 2022. Is the environment a victim of the economic
downturn? Evidence from China's manufacturing firms. Environment and Development Economics 115,
1-19. [Crossref]
27. Tonmoy Chatterjee. Environmental Regulation, International Trade, and Informal Sector 480-505.
[Crossref]
28. Qianqian Guo, Zhifang Su, Chaoshin Chiao. 2022. Carbon emissions trading policy, carbon finance,
and carbon emissions reduction: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Economic Change
and Restructuring 55:3, 1445-1480. [Crossref]
29. Marion Dupoux, Vincent Martinet. 2022. Could the environment be a normal good for you and an
inferior good for me? A theory of context-dependent substitutability and needs. Resource and Energy
Economics 69, 101316. [Crossref]
30. Li Chen, Di Wang, Ruyi Shi. 2022. Can China’s Carbon Emissions Trading System Achieve the
Synergistic Effect of Carbon Reduction and Pollution Control?. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 19:15, 8932. [Crossref]
31. Nyakundi M. Michieka, John Deal, Kyle Lahman. 2022. Air pollution and income inequality: a spatial
econometric approach. The Annals of Regional Science 69:1, 1-31. [Crossref]
32. Joseph A. Omojolaibi, Solomon P. Nathaniel. 2022. Assessing the potency of environmental regulation
in maintaining environmental sustainability in MENA countries: An advanced panel data estimation.
Journal of Public Affairs 22:3. . [Crossref]
33. Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie, Phebe Asantewaa Owusu. 2022. Global land-use intensity and
anthropogenic emissions exhibit symbiotic and explosive behavior. iScience 25:8, 104741. [Crossref]
34. Tobias Böhmelt, Vally Koubi, Thomas Bernauer. 2022. Why populism may facilitate non-state actors’
access to international environmental institutions. Environmental Politics 16, 1-21. [Crossref]
35. Daniel Faibil, Richard Asante, Martin Agyemang, Michael Addaney, Charles Baah. 2022. Extended
producer responsibility in developing economies: Assessment of promoting factors through retail
electronic firms for sustainable e-waste management. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for
a Sustainable Circular Economy 281, 0734242X2211054. [Crossref]
36. Matthew E. Kahn, Somik Lall. Will the Developing World's Growing Middle Class Support Low-
Carbon Policies? 1, . [Crossref]
37. Suvajit Banerjee. 2022. Emission-decoupling accounting framework of the Environmental Kuznets
Curve (EKC) for India with structurally decomposed production and consumption based drivers.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 33:5, 1305-1325. [Crossref]
38. Diego Sesma-Martín, Miguel Puente-Ajovín. 2022. The Environmental Kuznets Curve at the
thermoelectricity-water nexus: Empirical evidence from Spain. Water Resources and Economics 39,
100202. [Crossref]
39. Ekundayo Peter Mesagan, Titilope Comfort Adewuyi, Olugbenga Olaoye. 2022. Corporate finance,
industrial performance and environment in Africa: Lessons for policy. Scientific African 16, e01207.
[Crossref]
40. Yingying Yi, Xiaoxiao Yu, Xiaotong Sun. 2022. Will the liberalization of intermediate trade
restrain corporate pollution emissions?—Empirical evidence from Chinese micro-enterprises. Applied
Economics 54:30, 3521-3536. [Crossref]
41. Yonghong Lu, Rixing Liu. 2022. An Empirical Analysis of Jiangxi Province’s Financial Development,
Economic Growth, and Environmental Pollution. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
2022, 1-10. [Crossref]
42. Lin Yang. 2022. Economic-Environmental Law Guarantee of the Green and Sustainable Development:
Role of Health Expenditure and Innovation. Frontiers in Public Health 10. . [Crossref]
43. Jules-Eric Tchapchet-Tchouto, Noukignon Koné, Loudi Njoya. 2022. Investigating the effects of
environmental taxes on economic growth: Evidence from empirical analysis in European countries.
Environmental Economics 13:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
44. Diego Martínez-Navarro, Ignacio Amate-Fortes, Almudena Guarnido-Rueda. 2022. The Kuznets
Curve Hypothesis Checked Out on Up-To-Date Observations in African Countries. Journal of Asian
and African Studies 57:4, 819-840. [Crossref]
45. Fenfen Shi, Rijia Ding, Heqing Li, Suli Hao. 2022. Environmental Regulation, Digital Financial
Inclusion, and Environmental Pollution: An Empirical Study Based on the Spatial Spillover Effect and
Panel Threshold Effect. Sustainability 14:11, 6869. [Crossref]
46. Yating Dai, Hui Zhang, Jian Cheng, Xin Jiang, Xiuxiang Ji, Daolin Zhu. 2022. Whether ecological
measures have influenced the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC)? An analysis using land footprint
in the Weihe River Basin, China. Ecological Indicators 139, 108891. [Crossref]
47. Jilin Tian, Yinong Liu. 2022. Spatial Interaction Effect of Nonpoint Source Pollution and Economic
Growth on Agriculture Using Kuznets Curve and Grey Correlation Analysis. Mobile Information
Systems 2022, 1-10. [Crossref]
48. Radosław Ślosarski. 2022. Clean energy in the European Union: Transition or evolution?. Energy &
Environment 45, 0958305X2211005. [Crossref]
49. Megha Jain, Simrit Kaur. 2022. Carbon emissions, inequalities and economic freedom: an empirical
investigation in selected South Asian economies. International Journal of Social Economics 49:6,
882-913. [Crossref]
50. Moon Gyu Bae, Yi Chen Wang, Na Liu. 2022. Revisiting the Relationship Between the Strength of
Environmental Regulation and Foreign Direct Investment. Frontiers in Psychology 13. . [Crossref]
51. Zorzeta Bakaki, Tobias Böhmelt, Hugh Ward. 2022. Carbon Emission Performance and Regime Type:
The Role of Inequality. Global Environmental Politics 22:2, 156-179. [Crossref]
52. Haiwei Jiang, Yiyao He. 2022. Evaluation of Optimal Policy on Environmental Change through Green
Consumption. Sustainability 14:9, 4869. [Crossref]
53. Xinfei Li, Yueming Li, Chang Xu, Jingyang Duan, Wenqi Zhao, Baodong Cheng, Yuan Tian. 2022.
Can Environmental Regulation Reduce Urban Haze Concentration from the Perspective of China’s
Five Urban Agglomerations?. Atmosphere 13:5, 668. [Crossref]
54. Kazeem Bello Ajide, Ekundayo Peter Mesagan. 2022. Heterogeneous analysis of pollution abatement
via renewable and non-renewable energy: lessons from investment in G20 nations. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research 29:24, 36533-36546. [Crossref]
55. Muhlis Can, Jan Brusselaers, Mehmet Mercan. 2022. The effect of export composition on energy
demand: A fresh evidence in the context of economic complexity. Review of Development Economics
26:2, 687-703. [Crossref]
56. Olaniyi Evans, Ekundayo Peter Mesagan. 2022. ICT-trade and pollution in Africa: Do governance and
regulation matter?. Journal of Policy Modeling 44:3, 511-531. [Crossref]
57. Woon Gwan Jung, Heesung Woo, Yohan Lee. 2022. Why Social Capital Matters for the Success of
REDD+ Programs. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment 25:2, 227-237. [Crossref]
58. Quynh Nguyen. 2022. The Green Backlash against Economic Globalization. International Studies
Review 24:2. . [Crossref]
59. Sanjay Kumar Rout, Mohini Gupta, Malayaranjan Sahoo. 2022. The role of technological innovation
and diffusion, energy consumption and financial development in affecting ecological footprint in
BRICS: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29:17, 25318-25335.
[Crossref]
60. Muhammad Shahbaz, Avik Sinha, Andreas Kontoleon. 2022. Decomposing scale and technique effects
of economic growth on energy consumption: Fresh evidence from developing economies. International
Journal of Finance & Economics 27:2, 1848-1869. [Crossref]
61. Sha Qiao, Caihong Zhang, Lizeth Cuesta, Rafael Alvarado, Stefania Pinzón, Diana Bravo-Benavides.
2022. Impact of Government Stability and Investment Profile on Forest Area: The Role of Natural
Protected Areas. Sustainability 14:8, 4395. [Crossref]
62. Huanhong Li, Jianhua Xu, Jonathan B. Wiener. 2022. Comparing Environmental Risk Regulations
in China and the United States. Risk Analysis 42:4, 730-756. [Crossref]
63. Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, Yi Zou, Thomas C. Wanger, Wenwu Zhou, Yubak Dhoj Gc, Yanhui Lu. 2022.
Agro-ecology science relates to economic development but not global pesticide pollution. Journal of
Environmental Management 307, 114529. [Crossref]
64. Muhammad Wasif Zafar, Syed Anees Haider Zaidi, Sadia Mansoor, Avik Sinha, Quande Qin. 2022.
ICT and education as determinants of environmental quality: The role of financial development in
selected Asian countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 177, 121547. [Crossref]
65. Eugenia M. Gayo, Ariel A. Muñoz, Antonio Maldonado, Céline Lavergne, Jean Pierre Francois, Delia
Rodríguez, Karin Klock‐Barría, Paul R. Sheppard, Isabella Aguilera‐Betti, Carlos Alonso‐Hernández,
Marcelo Mena‐Carrasco, Anahí Urquiza, Laura Gallardo. 2022. A Cross‐Cutting Approach for
Relating Anthropocene, Environmental Injustice and Sacrifice Zones. Earth's Future 10:4. . [Crossref]
66. Dong-Hyeon Kim, Shu-Chin Lin. 2022. Trade Openness and Environmental Policy Stringency:
Quantile Evidence. Sustainability 14:6, 3590. [Crossref]
67. Xu Dong, Yali Yang, Qinqin Zhuang, Weili Xie, Xiaomeng Zhao. 2022. Does Environmental
Regulation Help Mitigate Factor Misallocation?—Theoretical Simulations Based on a Dynamic
General Equilibrium Model and the Perspective of TFP. International Journal of Environmental
68. Muhammad Azfar Anwar, Qingyu Zhang, Fahad Asmi, Nazim Hussain, Auke Plantinga, Muhammad
Wasif Zafar, Avik Sinha. 2022. Global perspectives on environmental kuznets curve: A bibliometric
review. Gondwana Research 103, 135-145. [Crossref]
69. Muhammad Shahbaz, Avik Sinha, Shabbir Ahmad, Zhilun Jiao, Zhaohua Wang. 2022. Role of foreign
direct investment in decomposing of scale and technique effects on China's energy consumption.
International Journal of Finance & Economics 3. . [Crossref]
70. Matthew E. Kahn, Weizeng Sun, Siqi Zheng. 2022. Clean air as an experience good in urban China.
Ecological Economics 192, 107254. [Crossref]
71. Ekundayo Peter Mesagan, Chidi Ndubuisi Olunkwa. 2022. Heterogeneous analysis of energy
consumption, financial development, and pollution in Africa: The relevance of regulatory quality.
Utilities Policy 74, 101328. [Crossref]
72. Lant Pritchett. 2022. National development delivers: And how! And how?. Economic Modelling 107,
105717. [Crossref]
73. Fei Han, Junming Li. 2022. Spatial Pattern and Spillover of Abatement Effect of Chinese
Environmental Protection Tax Law on PM2.5 Pollution. International Journal of Environmental
74. Philip E. Agbonifo. 2022. Socio-economic implications of poor environmental management: a
framework on the Niger Delta questions. Environment, Development and Sustainability 24:2,
2453-2470. [Crossref]
75. Altanshagai Batmunkh, Agus Dwi Nugroho, Maria Fekete-Farkas, Zoltan Lakner. 2022. Global
Challenges and Responses: Agriculture, Economic Globalization, and Environmental Sustainability in
Central Asia. Sustainability 14:4, 2455. [Crossref]
76. Muhammed Ashiq Villanthenkodath, Mantu Kumar Mahalik. 2022. Technological innovation and
environmental quality nexus in India: Does inward remittance matter?. Journal of Public Affairs 22:1. .
[Crossref]
77. Abhinandan Kumar, Pardeep Singh, Pankaj Raizada, Chaudhery Mustansar Hussain. 2022. Impact of
COVID-19 on greenhouse gases emissions: A critical review. Science of The Total Environment 806,
150349. [Crossref]
78. Eric Evans Osei Opoku, Kingsley E. Dogah, Olufemi Adewale Aluko. 2022. The contribution of
human development towards environmental sustainability. Energy Economics 106, 105782. [Crossref]
79. Xinyao Li, Wenhao Xue, Kai Wang, Yunfei Che, Jing Wei. 2022. Environmental regulation and
synergistic effects of PM2.5 control in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 337, 130438. [Crossref]
80. Büşra ŞİMŞEK, Halil TUNALI. 2022. REVISITING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CARBON EMISSIONS, MEDIUM AND HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES AND ECONOMIC
GROWTH: U-SHAPED EVIDENCE FROM DEVELOPING EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi 273-284. [Crossref]
81. Natalia Porto, Diego Andrés Pitetti, Matías Ciaschi. 2022. A worldwide tourism-extended
Environmental Kuznets Curve. New approaches in a comparative analysis. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 2, 1-19. [Crossref]
82. Nilüfer Kaya Kanlı, Bige Küçükefe. 2022. Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis valid? A global
analysis for carbon dioxide emissions. Environment, Development and Sustainability 35. . [Crossref]
83. Aurolipsa Das, Narayan Sethi. 2022. Modelling the environmental pollution-institutional quality
nexus in low- and middle-income countries: exploring the role of financial development and
educational level. Environment, Development and Sustainability 96. . [Crossref]
84. Yingqi Wei, Sasa Ding, Ziko Konwar. 2022. The two faces of FDI in environmental performance: a
meta-analysis of empirical evidence in China. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies 20:1,
65-94. [Crossref]
85. Hongtao Hu, Krishna P. Paudel, Ying Tan. 2022. Income, Policy, and Pollution. Environmental and
Resource Economics 81:1, 131-153. [Crossref]
86. Murat Can Genç, Aykut Ekinci, Burçhan Sakarya. 2022. The impact of output volatility on CO2
emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with Fourier stationarity test. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 29:2, 3008-3021. [Crossref]
87. Sahere Golzari, Hamid Zare Abyaneh, Naghmeh Mobarghaee Dinan, Majid Delavar, Paul Daniel
Wagner. 2022. Modeling the effects of human influences on water quality and quantity in the Zarrineh
River Basin, Iran. Journal of Hydro-environment Research 40, 51-63. [Crossref]
88. João Leitão, Joaquim Ferreira, Ernesto Santibanez-González. 2022. New insights into decoupling
economic growth, technological progress and carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from 40 countries.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174, 121250. [Crossref]
89. Paul J.J. Welfens. A CO2 Tax as a Sensible Climate Policy Instrument 279-287. [Crossref]
90. Fatma Taşdemir. Development, Trade Openness, and Pollution: Is there any Threshold? 109-120.
[Crossref]
91. Andreas Antoniades, Alexander S. Antonarakis. Financial Crises, Environment and Transition 25-43.
[Crossref]
92. Chukwuemeka Amaefule, Lawrence Oghenemaro Ebelebe. 2022. Climate Change Scare and FDI
Migration. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research 6:3, em0191. [Crossref]
93. Xiang Sun, BoKuan Zhu, Shuai Zhang, Heng Zeng, Kuai Li, Bin Wang, ZhanFeng Dong,
ChangChang Zhou. 2022. New indices system for quantifying the nexus between economic-social
development, natural resources consumption, and environmental pollution in China during 1978–
2018. Science of The Total Environment 804, 150180. [Crossref]
94. Chukwuemeka Amaefule, Ijeoma Emele Kalu, Sylvester Udeorah, Igwe Justice Ibeabuchi, Sunday
Oluwafiropo Adeola, Lawrence Oghenemaro Ebelebe. 2022. Transposed Second-Generation
Environmental Kuznets Curve, Changing Climate Patterns, and Selected Development Indicators.
European Journal of Sustainable Development Research 6:4, em0199. [Crossref]
95. Abhishek Dutta, Maniklal Adhikary. 2022. Impact of Time Trend and Heterogeneity on EKC in
Asian Countries. International Journal of Sustainable Economies Management 11:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
96. Abdul Farooq, Ahsan Anwar, Muhammad Ahad, Ghulam Shabbir, Zulfiqar Ali Imran. 2021. A validity
of environmental Kuznets curve under the role of urbanization, financial development index and foreign
direct investment in Pakistan. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences 30. . [Crossref]
97. Zorzeta Bakaki, Tobias Böhmelt. 2021. Can UN Peacekeeping Promote Environmental Quality?.
International Studies Quarterly 65:4, 881-890. [Crossref]
98. Rabeh Khalfaoui, Aviral Kumar Tiwari, Usman Khalid, Muhammad Shahbaz. 2021. Nexus between
carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in G7 countries: fresh insights via wavelet coherence
analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2, 1-36. [Crossref]
99. Muhammad Shafiullah, Vassilios G. Papavassiliou, Muhammad Shahbaz. 2021. Is There an Extended
Education-Based Environmental Kuznets Curve? An Analysis of U.S. States. Environmental and
Resource Economics 80:4, 795-819. [Crossref]
100. Mehmet Demiral, Emrah Eray Akça, Ipek Tekin. 2021. Predictors of global carbon dioxide emissions:
Do stringent environmental policies matter?. Environment, Development and Sustainability 23:12,
18337-18361. [Crossref]
101. Roxana Pincheira, Felipe Zúñiga, Francisco Valencia. 2021. An environmental measurement for a
dynamic and endogenous global environmental Kuznets curve in the global context. Environmental
102. Umme Habiba, Cao Xinbang, Rahil Irfan Ahmad. 2021. The influence of stock market and financial
institution development on carbon emissions with the importance of renewable energy consumption
and foreign direct investment in G20 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:47,
67677-67688. [Crossref]
103. Mary Oluwatoyin Agboola, Festus Victor Bekun, Udi Joshua. 2021. Pathway to environmental
sustainability: Nexus between economic growth, energy consumption, CO2 emission, oil rent and
total natural resources rent in Saudi Arabia. Resources Policy 74, 102380. [Crossref]
104. Junbing Huang, Xinghao Li, Yajun Wang, Hongyan Lei. 2021. The effect of energy patents on China's
carbon emissions: Evidence from the STIRPAT model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
173, 121110. [Crossref]
105. Annie Tubadji, Valentina Montalto. 2021. Geographies of Flowers and Geographies of Flower Power.
Sustainability 13:24, 13712. [Crossref]
106. Muhammed Ashiq Villanthenkodath, Mohini Gupta, Seema Saini, Malayaranjan Sahoo. 2021. Impact
of Economic Structure on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis in India. Journal of
Economic Structures 10:1. . [Crossref]
107. Jingneng Huang, Sen Zhang, Yiwen Zou, Jun Tai, Yuqing Shi, Bingbing Fu, Jun Zhao, Guangren
Qian. 2021. The heterogeneous time and income effects in Kuznets curves of municipal solid waste
generation: comparing developed and developing economies. Science of The Total Environment 799,
149157. [Crossref]
108. Wei Hu, Zhenxing Xiong. 2021. Do stringent environmental regulations help improve the total factor
carbon productivity? Empirical evidence from China’s industrial sectors. Applied Economics 53:55,
6398-6411. [Crossref]
109. Susmita Dasgupta, Somik Lall, David Wheeler. Urban CO 2 Emissions: A Global Analysis with New
Satellite Data 125, . [Crossref]
110. Yu Hao, Shang Gao, Yunxia Guo, Zhiqiang Gai, Haitao Wu. 2021. Measuring the nexus
between economic development and environmental quality based on environmental Kuznets curve:
a comparative study between China and Germany for the period of 2000–2017. Environment,
Development and Sustainability 23:11, 16848-16873. [Crossref]
111. Davor Mance, Katarina Krunić, Diana Mance. 2021. Protecting Species by Promoting Protected Areas
and Human Development—A Panel Analysis. Sustainability 13:21, 11970. [Crossref]
112. Man Qin, Mingxue Sun, Jun Li. 2021. Impact of environmental regulation policy on ecological
efficiency in four major urban agglomerations in eastern China. Ecological Indicators 130, 108002.
[Crossref]
113. Chuanglin Fang, Haimeng Liu, Shaojian Wang. 2021. The coupling curve between urbanization and
the eco-environment: China’s urban agglomeration as a case study. Ecological Indicators 130, 108107.
[Crossref]
114. Li He, Xiaoling Zhang, Yaxue Yan. 2021. Heterogeneity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve across
Chinese cities: How to dance with ‘shackles’?. Ecological Indicators 130, 108128. [Crossref]
115. Haitao Wu, Yan Xue, Yu Hao, Siyu Ren. 2021. How does internet development affect energy-saving
and emission reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Economics 103, 105577. [Crossref]
116. Rui Yang, Xin Miao, Christina W.Y. Wong, Teng Wang, Mengjin Du. 2021. Assessment on the
interaction between technology innovation and eco-environmental systems in China. Environmental
117. Wilman-Santiago Ochoa-Moreno, Byron Alejandro Quito, Carlos Andrés Moreno-Hurtado. 2021.
Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Quality: Revisiting the EKC in Latin American
Countries. Sustainability 13:22, 12651. [Crossref]
118. Quynh Nguyen, Edmund Malesky. 2021. Fish or steel? New evidence on the environment-economy
trade-off in developing Vietnam. World Development 147, 105603. [Crossref]
119. Henry Laverde-Rojas, Juan C. Correa. 2021. Economic Complexity, Economic Growth, and CO 2
Emissions: A Panel Data Analysis. International Economic Journal 35:4, 411-433. [Crossref]
120. Ferda Yerdelen Tatoğlu, Buğra Polat. 2021. Occurrence of turnig points on environmental kuznets
curve: Sharp breaks or smooth shifts?. Journal of Cleaner Production 317, 128333. [Crossref]
121. Dongyang Zhang. 2021. Marketization, environmental regulation, and eco-friendly productivity:
A Malmquist–Luenberger index for pollution emissions of large Chinese firms. Journal of Asian
122. Yexing Yin, Xinruo Xiong, Sana Ullah, Sidra Sohail. 2021. Examining the asymmetric socioeconomic
determinants of CO2 emissions in China: challenges and policy implications. Environmental Science
and Pollution Research 28:40, 57115-57125. [Crossref]
123. Matías Piaggio. 2021. The value of public urban green spaces: Measuring the effects of proximity to
and size of urban green spaces on housing market values in San José, Costa Rica. Land Use Policy
109, 105656. [Crossref]
124. Ana R. Leal, Bryan W. Husted, Miguel Alejandro Flores Segovia. 2021. Environmental performance
spillovers among Mexican industrial facilities: The case of greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Research
135, 711-720. [Crossref]
125. Ghassan Dibeh, Ali Fakih, Walid Marrouch, Ghida Matar. 2021. Who Cares About Environmental
Quality in the MENA Region?. Social Indicators Research 157:2, 603-629. [Crossref]
126. Ming Chen, Hongquan Chen. 2021. Spatiotemporal coupling measurement of industrial wastewater
discharge and industrial economy in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:34,
46319-46333. [Crossref]
127. Tomasz Rokicki, Grzegorz Koszela, Luiza Ochnio, Kamil Wojtczuk, Marcin Ratajczak, Hubert
Szczepaniuk, Konrad Michalski, Piotr Bórawski, Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska. 2021. Diversity and
Changes in Energy Consumption by Transport in EU Countries. Energies 14:17, 5414. [Crossref]
128. Salih Cagri Ilkay, Veli Yilanci, Recep Ulucak, Kirsten Jones. 2021. Technology spillovers and
sustainable environment: Evidence from time-series analyses with Fourier extension. Journal of
129. Rinku Manocha. 2021. Do FDI Flows Lead to Environmental Degradation in Developing
Economies? A Case Study of Select Asian Economies. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 13,
097226292110354. [Crossref]
130. Guangqin Li, Qiao He, Dongmei Wang, Bofan Liu. 2021. Environmental non-governmental
organizations and air-pollution governance: Empirical evidence from OECD countries. PLOS ONE
16:8, e0255166. [Crossref]
131. Büşra ŞİMŞEK, Halil TUNALI. 2021. Revisiting the Relationship between Carbon Emission,
Medium and High-Tech Industries and Economic Growth: U-shaped Evidence from Developing
European Countries. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi . [Crossref]
132. Juan Du, Hongtao Yi. 2021. Target‐setting, political incentives, and the tricky trade‐off between
economic development and environmental protection. Public Administration 85. . [Crossref]
133. Teevrat Garg, Ajay Shenoy. 2021. The Ecological Impact of Place‐Based Economic Policies. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 103:4, 1239-1250. [Crossref]
134. Qun Bao, Min Shao, Dali Yang. 2021. Environmental regulation, local legislation and pollution control
in China. Environment and Development Economics 26:4, 321-339. [Crossref]
135. Quynh Nguyen, Robert A. Huber, Thomas Bernauer. 2021. Environmental Impacts and Public
Opinion About International Trade: Experimental Evidence from Six OECD Countries. Global
Environmental Politics 21:3, 49-76. [Crossref]
136. Mushtaq Ahmad Malik. 2021. Economic growth, energy consumption, and environmental quality
nexus in Turkey: Evidence from simultaneous equation models. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research 28:31, 41988-41999. [Crossref]
137. Shemelis Kebede Hundie. 2021. Income inequality, economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions
nexus: empirical evidence from Ethiopia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:32,
43579-43598. [Crossref]
138. James Ming Chen, Mira Zovko, Nika Šimurina, Vatroslav Zovko. 2021. Fear in a Handful of Dust: The
Epidemiological, Environmental, and Economic Drivers of Death by PM2.5 Pollution. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18:16, 8688. [Crossref]
139. Jiajia Guo, Yong Zhou, Shahid Ali, Umer Shahzad, Lianbiao Cui. 2021. Exploring the role of green
innovation and investment in energy for environmental quality: An empirical appraisal from provincial
data of China. Journal of Environmental Management 292, 112779. [Crossref]
140. Natalia Porto, Matías Ciaschi. 2021. Reformulating the tourism-extended environmental Kuznets
curve: A quantile regression analysis under environmental legal conditions. Tourism Economics 27:5,
991-1014. [Crossref]
141. Kazeem Bello Ajide, Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim. 2021. Threshold effects of capital investments on
carbon emissions in G20 economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:29, 39052-39070.
[Crossref]
142. Michael C. Morris. 2021. The Voiceless Animal Cruelty Index and its relationship to per capita
purchasing power parity and inequality. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 16:2,
384-395. [Crossref]
143. Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, Rabindra Nepal, Khosrul Alam. 2021. Impacts of human capital,
exports, economic growth and energy consumption on CO2 emissions of a cross-sectionally dependent
panel: Evidence from the newly industrialized countries (NICs). Environmental Science & Policy 121,
24-36. [Crossref]
144. Estrella Trincado, Antonio Sánchez-Bayón, José María Vindel. 2021. The European Union Green
Deal: Clean Energy Wellbeing Opportunities and the Risk of the Jevons Paradox. Energies 14:14, 4148.
[Crossref]
145. Saptorshee Kanto Chakraborty, Massimiliano Mazzanti. 2021. Revisiting the literature on the dynamic
Environmental Kuznets Curves using a latent structure approach. Economia Politica 31. . [Crossref]
146. Muhammad Usman, Sofia Anwar, Muhammad Rizwan Yaseen, Muhammad Sohail Amjad Makhdum,
Rakhshanda Kousar, Atif Jahanger. 2021. Unveiling the dynamic relationship between agriculture
value addition, energy utilization, tourism and environmental degradation in South Asia. Journal of
Public Affairs 6. . [Crossref]
147. Steve Cohn. 2021. The Implications of the Triumph of Neoclassical Economics over Marxist
Economics in China. Review of Radical Political Economics 53:2, 281-299. [Crossref]
148. Xinfei Li, Baodong Cheng, Qiling Hong, Chang Xu. 2021. Can a Win–Win Situation of Economy and
Environment Be Achieved in Cities by the Government’s Environmental Regulations?. Sustainability
13:11, 5829. [Crossref]
149. Bo Sui, Chun-Ping Chang, Yin Chu. 2021. Political Stability: an Impetus for Spatial Environmental
Spillovers. Environmental and Resource Economics 79:2, 387-415. [Crossref]
150. Ellie-Anne Jones, Rick Stafford. 2021. Neoliberalism and the Environment: Are We Aware of
Appropriate Action to Save the Planet and Do We Think We Are Doing Enough?. Earth 2:2, 331-339.
[Crossref]
151. EKUNDAYO PETER MESAGAN, KAYODE ABIODUN AKINYEMI, ISMAILA AKANNI
YUSUF. 2021. FINANCIAL INTEGRATION AND ENVIRONMENT IN AFRICA: THE ROLE
OF OUTPUT GROWTH AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT. International Journal of Big
Data Mining for Global Warming 03:01, 2150002. [Crossref]
152. Qi-Cheng Yang, Gen-Fu Feng, Chun-Ping Chang, Quan-Jing Wang. 2021. Environmental protection
and performance: A bi-directional assessment. Science of The Total Environment 774, 145747.
[Crossref]
153. Kiranmayi Raparthi. 2021. Assessing the Relationship Between Urban Planning Policies, Gender, and
Climate Change Mitigation: Regression Model Evaluation of Indian Cities. Journal of Urban Planning
and Development 147:2. . [Crossref]
154. Solomon Prince Nathaniel. 2021. Natural Resources, Urbanisation, Economic Growth and the
Ecological Footprint in South Africa: The Moderating Role of Human Capital. Quaestiones
Geographicae 40:2, 63-76. [Crossref]
155. James Temitope Dada, Folorunsho Monsur Ajide, Akinwumi Sharimakin. 2021. Shadow economy,
institutions and environmental pollution: insights from Africa. World Journal of Science, Technology
and Sustainable Development 18:2, 153-171. [Crossref]
156. Mihaela Simionescu, Carmen Beatrice Păuna, Mihaela-Daniela Vornicescu Niculescu. 2021. The
Relationship between Economic Growth and Pollution in Some New European Union Member States:
A Dynamic Panel ARDL Approach. Energies 14:9, 2363. [Crossref]
157. Wenwen Wang, Xinran Sun, Ming Zhang. 2021. Does the central environmental inspection effectively
improve air pollution?-An empirical study of 290 prefecture-level cities in China. Journal of
158. Timothy D. Terrell. 2021. Carbon flux and N- and M-shaped environmental Kuznets curves: evidence
from international land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 10:2, 155-174.
[Crossref]
159. Magdalena Cyrek, Piotr Cyrek. 2021. Does Economic Structure Differentiate the Achievements
towards Energy SDG in the EU?. Energies 14:8, 2229. [Crossref]
160. Roxana Pincheira, Felipe Zuniga. 2021. Environmental Kuznets curve bibliographic map: a systematic
literature review. Accounting & Finance 61:S1, 1931-1956. [Crossref]
161. Annie Tubadji, Thomas Colwill, Don Webber. 2021. Voting with your feet or voting for Brexit: The
tale of those stuck behind. Regional Science Policy & Practice 13:2, 247-277. [Crossref]
162. Enn Lun Yong. 2021. Understanding the economic impacts of sea-level rise on tourism prosperity:
Conceptualization and panel data evidence. Advances in Climate Change Research 12:2, 240-253.
[Crossref]
163. Nicolás Blampied. 2021. Economic growth, environmental constraints and convergence. Ecological
164. Chor Foon Tang, Salah Abosedra, Navaz Naghavi. 2021. Does the quality of institutions and education
strengthen the quality of the environment? Evidence from a global perspective. Energy 218, 119303.
[Crossref]
165. Mahmoud Salari, Roxana J. Javid, Hamid Noghanibehambari. 2021. The nexus between CO2
emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in the U.S. Economic Analysis and Policy 69,
182-194. [Crossref]
166. Fatima Bibi, Muhammad Jamil. 2021. Testing environment Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in
different regions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:11, 13581-13594. [Crossref]
167. Shahid Ali, Eyup Dogan, Fuzhong Chen, Zeeshan Khan. 2021. International trade and environmental
performance in top ten‐emitters countries: The role of eco‐innovation and renewable energy
consumption. Sustainable Development 29:2, 378-387. [Crossref]
168. Xiaodong Yang, Jinning Zhang, Siyu Ren, Qiying Ran. 2021. Can the new energy demonstration city
policy reduce environmental pollution? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal
of Cleaner Production 287, 125015. [Crossref]
169. Muhammad Farhan Bashir, Benjiang Ma, Muhammad Adnan Bashir, Bilal, Luqman Shahzad.
2021. Scientific data-driven evaluation of academic publications on environmental Kuznets curve.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 40. . [Crossref]
170. Mantu Kumar Mahalik, Hrushikesh Mallick, Hemachandra Padhan. 2021. Do educational levels
influence the environmental quality? The role of renewable and non-renewable energy demand in
selected BRICS countries with a new policy perspective. Renewable Energy 164, 419-432. [Crossref]
171. Monica Singhania, Neha Saini. 2021. Demystifying pollution haven hypothesis: Role of FDI. Journal
of Business Research 123, 516-528. [Crossref]
172. Matthew E. Kahn, Nancy Lozano‐Gracia, Maria Edisa Soppelsa. 2021. POLLUTION'S ROLE IN
REDUCING URBAN QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD. Journal of Economic
Surveys 35:1, 330-347. [Crossref]
173. João Leitão, Joaquim Ferreira. 2021. Dynamic Effects of Material Production and Environmental
Sustainability on Economic Vitality Indicators: A Panel VAR Approach. Journal of Risk and Financial
Management 14:2, 74. [Crossref]
174. Su-Mei Chen, Jia-Jia Ou, Ling-Yun He. 2021. The Environmental and Health Impacts of Poverty
Alleviation in China: From a Consumption-Based Perspective. Sustainability 13:4, 1784. [Crossref]
175. Cosimo Magazzino, Marco Mele, Nicolas Schneider, Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie. 2021. Waste
generation, wealth and GHG emissions from the waste sector: Is Denmark on the path towards circular
economy?. Science of The Total Environment 755, 142510. [Crossref]
176. Bruno Chiarini, Antonella D'Agostino, Elisabetta Marzano, Andrea Regoli. 2021. Air quality in urban
areas: Comparing objective and subjective indicators in European countries. Ecological Indicators 121,
107144. [Crossref]
177. Ekundayo Peter Mesagan, Kazeem Bello Ajide, Xuan Vinh Vo. 2021. Dynamic heterogeneous
analysis of pollution reduction in SANEM countries: lessons from the energy-investment interaction.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28:5, 5417-5429. [Crossref]
178. Izhar Hussain Shah, Hung‐Suck Park. 2021. Chronological change of resource metabolism and
decarbonization patterns in Pakistan: Perspectives from a typical developing country. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 25:1, 144-161. [Crossref]
179. Abdel-Mohsen O. Mohamed, Munjed A. Maraqa, Fares M. Howari, Evan K. Paleologos. Outdoor
air pollutants 491-554. [Crossref]
180. Youssef Abdul Razzak Doughan. Factors of Production, Economic Growth, and Sustainable
Development 427-439. [Crossref]
181. Daniel Balsalobre-Lorente, Nuno Carlos Leitão, Festus Victor Bekun. 2021. Fresh Validation of the
Low Carbon Development Hypothesis under the EKC Scheme in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.
Energies 14:1, 250. [Crossref]
182. Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, Muhammad Moinuddin Qazi Abro, Rubeena Batool, Syed Haider Ali Shah,
Shabir Hyder, Khalid Zaman. 2021. Go‐for‐green policies: The role of finance and trade for sustainable
development. International Journal of Finance & Economics 26:1, 1409-1423. [Crossref]
183. Indrani Roy Chowdhury, Anusree Paul, Tapaswini Nayak. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory
Illness: A Study in Opencast Coal Mining Region of Odisha 281-301. [Crossref]
184. Mariana Conte Grand. Rankings for Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth Decoupling 61-83.
[Crossref]
185. Gal Hochman, David Zilberman. 2021. Optimal environmental taxation in response to an
environmentally-unfriendly political challenger. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
59, 102407. [Crossref]
186. Mohamed K. Mostafa, Gamil Gamal, A. Wafiq. 2021. The impact of COVID 19 on air pollution levels
and other environmental indicators - A case study of Egypt. Journal of Environmental Management
277, 111496. [Crossref]
187. Shikha Singh, Abhinav Yadav. Interconnecting the environment with economic development of a
nation 35-60. [Crossref]
188. Daniela Perrotti, Pramit Verma, K.K. Srivastava, Pardeep Singh. Challenges and opportunities at the
crossroads of Environmental Sustainability and Economy research 345-360. [Crossref]
189. James Ming Chen, Mira Zovko, Nika Šimurina, Vatroslav Zovko. 2021. Fear in a Handful of Dust:
The Epidemiological, Environmental, and Economic Drivers of Death by PM2.5 Pollution. SSRN
Electronic Journal 37. . [Crossref]
190. Murat PÜTÜN, Mehmet SEDAT UĞUR. 2020. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND CAPACITY FOR GENERATING CO2 EMISSIONS: TESTING
THE VALIDITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE FOR TURKEY.
International Journal of Management Economics and Business 16:4. . [Crossref]
191. Wanfang Xiong, Yan Han, M. James C. Crabbe, Xiao-Guang Yue. 2020. Fiscal Expenditures on
Science and Technology and Environmental Pollution: Evidence from China. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 17:23, 8761. [Crossref]
192. Mucahit Aydin, Yunus Emre Turan. 2020. The influence of financial openness, trade openness, and
energy intensity on ecological footprint: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for
BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:34, 43233-43245. [Crossref]
193. Yulin Liu, Jun Wang. 2020. Environmental pollution, environmental regulation, and labor income
share. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:36, 45161-45174. [Crossref]
194. Claire E.W. Yameogo, Joseph A. Omojolaibi, Risikat O.S. Dauda. 2020. Economic Globalisation,
Institutions and Environmental Quality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Research in Globalization 100035.
[Crossref]
195. Laté A. LAWSON, Roberto MARTINO, Phu NGUYEN-VAN. 2020. Environmental convergence
and environmental Kuznets curve: A unified empirical framework. Ecological Modelling 437, 109289.
[Crossref]
196. Mathilde Salin. 2020. La « courbe de Kuznets environnementale » et le « découplage » : deux concepts
du débat sur la croissance verte. Regards croisés sur l'économie n° 26:1, 145-152. [Crossref]
197. Aparna Sajeev, Simrit Kaur. 2020. Environmental sustainability, trade and economic growth in India:
implications for public policy. International Trade, Politics and Development 4:2, 141-160. [Crossref]
198. Benjamin Cashore, Iben Nathan. 2020. Can finance and market driven (FMD) interventions make
“weak states” stronger? Lessons from the good governance norm complex in Cambodia. Ecological
199. Muhammad Iftikhar Ul Husnain, Azad Haider, Muhammad Aamir Khan. 2020. Does the
environmental Kuznets curve reliably explain a developmental issue?. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 25. . [Crossref]
200. Kanon Kumar Sen, Md. Thasinul Abedin. 2020. A comparative analysis of environmental quality and
Kuznets curve between two newly industrialized economies. Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal 32:2, 308-327. [Crossref]
201. Simona-Roxana Ulman, Costica Mihai, Cristina Cautisanu. 2020. Peculiarities of the Relation between
Human and Environmental Wellbeing in Different Stages of National Development. Sustainability
12:19, 8106. [Crossref]
202. Zheng Fang, Bihong Huang, Zhuoxiang Yang. 2020. Trade openness and the environmental Kuznets
curve: Evidence from Chinese cities. The World Economy 43:10, 2622-2649. [Crossref]
203. Felix Nutakor, Sylvestre Bizumuremyi, Jinke Li, Wei Liu. 2020. Does the Environmental Kuznets
Curve for CO2 Emissions Exist for Rwanda? Evidence from Bootstrapped Rolling-Window Granger
Causality Test. Sustainability 12:20, 8636. [Crossref]
204. Sofien Tiba, Fateh Belaid. 2020. The pollution concern in the era of globalization: Do the contribution
of foreign direct investment and trade openness matter?. Energy Economics 92, 104966. [Crossref]
205. Chenxi Lu, Sergey Venevsky, Xiaoliang Shi, Lingyu Wang, Jonathon S. Wright, Chao Wu. 2020.
Econometrics of the environmental Kuznets curve: Testing advancement to carbon intensity-oriented
sustainability for eight economic zones in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 124561. [Crossref]
206. Alexandra-Anca Purcel. 2020. New insights into the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in
developing and transition economies: a literature survey. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies
22:4, 585-631. [Crossref]
207. Hüseyin Şentürk, Tolga Omay, Julide Yildirim, Nezir Köse. 2020. Environmental Kuznets Curve:
Non-Linear Panel Regression Analysis. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 25:5, 633-651.
[Crossref]
208. Manel Kamoun, Ines Abdelkafi, Abdelfetah Ghorbel. 2020. Does Renewable Energy Technologies
and Poverty Affect the Sustainable Growth in Emerging Countries?. Journal of the Knowledge Economy
11:3, 865-887. [Crossref]
209. Sofien Tiba, Mohamed Frikha. 2020. EKC and Macroeconomics Aspects of Well-being: a Critical
Vision for a Sustainable Future. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 11:3, 1171-1197. [Crossref]
210. Seref Bozoklu, A. Oguz Demir, Sinan Ataer. 2020. Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve:
a summability approach for emerging market economies. Eurasian Economic Review 10:3, 513-531.
[Crossref]
211. Davor Mance, Siniša Vilke, Borna Debelić. 2020. Sustainable Governance of Coastal Areas and Tourism
Impact on Waste Production: Panel Analysis of Croatian Municipalities. Sustainability 12:18, 7243.
[Crossref]
212. Fnu Alisha, Meri Davlasheridze, Nikolaos Mykoniatis. 2020. Socioeconomic drivers of marine debris
in North America. Marine Environmental Research 160, 105042. [Crossref]
213. Enrico Maria Mosconi, Andrea Colantoni, Filippo Gambella, Eva Cudlinová, Luca Salvati, Jesús
Rodrigo-Comino. 2020. Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve: The Spatial Interaction
between Economy and Territory. Economies 8:3, 74. [Crossref]
214. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2020. Catastrophe Theory Predicts International Concern for Global
Warming. Journal of Quantitative Economics 18:3, 709-731. [Crossref]
215. Song Jiang, Shuang Qiu, Jie Zhou. 2020. Re-Examination of the Relationship between Agricultural
Economic Growth and Non-Point Source Pollution in China: Evidence from the Threshold Model
of Financial Development. Water 12:9, 2609. [Crossref]
216. Laura Bakkensen, Paul Schuler. 2020. A preference for power: Willingness to pay for energy reliability
versus fuel type in Vietnam. Energy Policy 144, 111696. [Crossref]
217. Xia Chen, Chun-Ping Chang. 2020. Fiscal decentralization, environmental regulation, and pollution:
a spatial investigation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:25, 31946-31968. [Crossref]
218. Chong Wang, Peter W. Cardon, Jing Liu, Ghulam Rasool Madni. 2020. Social and economic factors
responsible for environmental performance: A global analysis. PLOS ONE 15:8, e0237597. [Crossref]
219. Andrew Brennan, Astghik Mavisakalyan, Yashar Tarverdi. Responses to Climate Change 9-32.
[Crossref]
220. Zhenran Li, Yan Song, Aina Zhou, Jun Liu, Jingru Pang, Ming Zhang. 2020. Study on the pollution
emission efficiency of China’s provincial regions: The perspective of Environmental Kuznets curve.
Journal of Cleaner Production 263, 121497. [Crossref]
221. Lourdes Isabel Patiño, Emilio Padilla, Vicent Alcántara, Josep Lluís Raymond. 2020. The Relationship
of Energy and CO2 Emissions with GDP per Capita in Colombia. Atmosphere 11:8, 778. [Crossref]
222. Caterina Lucarelli, Camilla Mazzoli, Michela Rancan, Sabrina Severini. 2020. Classification of
Sustainable Activities: EU Taxonomy and Scientific Literature. Sustainability 12:16, 6460. [Crossref]
223. Yifei Zhang, Sheng Li, Tianyuan Luo, Jing Gao. 2020. The effect of emission trading policy on
carbon emission reduction: Evidence from an integrated study of pilot regions in China. Journal of
Cleaner Production 265, 121843. [Crossref]
224. George Halkos, Kleoniki Natalia Petrou. 2020. The relationship between MSW and education: WKC
evidence from 25 OECD countries. Waste Management 114, 240-252. [Crossref]
225. Ajit Singh, William R Avis, Francis D Pope. 2020. Visibility as a proxy for air quality in East Africa.
Environmental Research Letters 15:8, 084002. [Crossref]
226. Lei Wang, Xuan Vinh Vo, Muhammad Shahbaz, Aysegul Ak. 2020. Globalization and carbon
emissions: Is there any role of agriculture value-added, financial development, and natural resource
rent in the aftermath of COP21?. Journal of Environmental Management 268, 110712. [Crossref]
227. Ranjula Bali Swain, Uma S. Kambhampati, Amin Karimu. 2020. Regulation, governance and the
role of the informal sector in influencing environmental quality?. Ecological Economics 173, 106649.
[Crossref]
228. Simrat Kaur. 2020. Public preferences for setting up a biomass power plant to combat open-field
burning of rice crop residues: A case study of district Sangrur, Punjab, India. Biomass and Bioenergy
138, 105577. [Crossref]
229. Sam Asher, Teevrat Garg, Paul Novosad. 2020. The Ecological Impact of Transportation
Infrastructure. The Economic Journal 130:629, 1173-1199. [Crossref]
230. Devleena Chakravarty, Sabuj Kumar Mandal. 2020. Is economic growth a cause or cure for
environmental degradation? Empirical evidences from selected developing economies. Environmental
and Sustainability Indicators 100045. [Crossref]
231. Pasquale Pazienza, Caterina De Lucia. 2020. How does FDI in the “agricultural and fishing” sector
affect methane emission? Evidence from the OECD countries. Economia Politica 37:2, 441-462.
[Crossref]
232. Zhenbo Zhang, Taijun Jin, Xiaohua Meng. 2020. From race-to-the-bottom to strategic imitation:
how does political competition impact the environmental enforcement of local governments in China?.
233. Nina Eisenmenger, Melanie Pichler, Nora Krenmayr, Dominik Noll, Barbara Plank, Ekaterina
Schalmann, Marie-Theres Wandl, Simone Gingrich. 2020. The Sustainable Development Goals
prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a
socio-ecological perspective. Sustainability Science 15:4, 1101-1110. [Crossref]
234. Cindy Cheng, Joan Barceló, Allison Spencer Hartnett, Robert Kubinec, Luca Messerschmidt. 2020.
COVID-19 Government Response Event Dataset (CoronaNet v.1.0). Nature Human Behaviour 4:7,
756-768. [Crossref]
235. Evan D. Peet. 2020. Early-life environment and human capital: evidence from the Philippines.
Environment and Development Economics 36, 1-25. [Crossref]
236. Paul J. Ferraro, Rhita Simorangkir. 2020. Conditional cash transfers to alleviate poverty also reduced
deforestation in Indonesia. Science Advances 6:24. . [Crossref]
237. Jason Hickel, Giorgos Kallis. 2020. Is Green Growth Possible?. New Political Economy 25:4, 469-486.
[Crossref]
238. Eyup Dogan, Recep Ulucak, Emrah Kocak, Cem Isik. 2020. The use of ecological footprint in
estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section
dependence and heterogeneity. Science of The Total Environment 723, 138063. [Crossref]
239. Dohyung Kim, Sun Go. 2020. Human Capital and Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability 12:11,
4736. [Crossref]
240. Anver C. Sadath, Rajesh H. Acharya. 2020. Economic growth and environmental degradation: How
to balance the interests of developed and developing countries. ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT :2, 25-47. [Crossref]
241. D Horen Greenford, T Crownshaw, C Lesk, K Stadler, H D Matthews. 2020. Shifting economic
activity to services has limited potential to reduce global environmental impacts due to the household
consumption of labour. Environmental Research Letters 15:6, 064019. [Crossref]
242. Ming Zhang, Xinran Sun, Wenwen Wang. 2020. Study on the effect of environmental regulations and
industrial structure on haze pollution in China from the dual perspective of independence and linkage.
Journal of Cleaner Production 256, 120748. [Crossref]
243. B Mulyanto, D Ernawati, K Munibah. 2020. Relationship of the land status with forest and land
fire disaster: case study in the Central Kalimantan Province. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 504:1, 012014. [Crossref]
244. Muhammad Haseeb, Ilham Haouas, Mohammad Nasih, Leonardus WW. Mihardjo, Kittisak
Jermsittiparsert. 2020. Asymmetric impact of textile and clothing manufacturing on carbon-dioxide
emissions: Evidence from top Asian economies. Energy 196, 117094. [Crossref]
245. Min Jiang, Euijune Kim, Youngjin Woo. 2020. The Relationship between Economic Growth and
Air Pollution—A Regional Comparison between China and South Korea. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 17:8, 2761. [Crossref]
246. Jorge Rojas-Vallejos, Amy Lastuka. 2020. The income inequality and carbon emissions trade-off
revisited. Energy Policy 139, 111302. [Crossref]
247. Muhammad Shahbaz, Ilham Haouas, Kazi Sohag, Ilhan Ozturk. 2020. The financial development-
environmental degradation nexus in the United Arab Emirates: the importance of growth, globalization
and structural breaks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:10, 10685-10699. [Crossref]
248. Octavio Fernández-Amador, Joseph F. Francois, Doris A. Oberdabernig, Patrick Tomberger. 2020.
The methane footprint of nations: Stylized facts from a global panel dataset. Ecological Economics 170,
106528. [Crossref]
249. Hilaire Nkengfack, Serge Temkeng Djoudji, Hervé Kaffo Fotio. 2020. Gouvernance, institutions et
protection de l’environnement dans les pays de la CEEAC. Économie rurale :371, 5-22. [Crossref]
250. Haroon Rasool, Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, Md. Tarique. 2020. The curvilinear relationship between
environmental pollution and economic growth. International Journal of Energy Sector Management
14:5, 891-910. [Crossref]
251. Izhar Hussain Shah, Liang Dong, Hung-Suck Park. 2020. Characterization of resource consumption
and efficiency trends in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan: Economy-wide biotic and abiotic material flow
accounting from 1978 to 2017. Journal of Cleaner Production 250, 119554. [Crossref]
252. Caner Demir, Raif Cergibozan, Ali Ari. 2020. Environmental dimension of innovation: time series
evidence from Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22:3, 2497-2516. [Crossref]
253. Xinghua Zhao, Zongfeng Sun. 2020. The Effect of Satisfaction with Environmental Performance on
Subjective Well-Being in China: GDP as a Moderating Factor. Sustainability 12:5, 1745. [Crossref]
254. Germà Bel, Jordi J. Teixidó. 2020. The Political Economy of the Paris Agreement: Income Inequality
and Climate Policy. Journal of Cleaner Production 121002. [Crossref]
255. Daniele Malerba. 2020. Poverty alleviation and local environmental degradation: An empirical analysis
in Colombia. World Development 127, 104776. [Crossref]
256. Aisha Sheikh, Owais Ibni Hassan. 2020. An Empirical Analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve
for River Water Pollution in Uttar Pradesh. The Indian Economic Journal 68:1, 101-117. [Crossref]
257. Shen Yue, Irfan Ullah Munir, Shabir Hyder, Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, Muhammad Moinuddin Qazi
Abro, Khalid Zaman. 2020. Sustainable food production, forest biodiversity and mineral pricing:
Interconnected global issues. Resources Policy 65, 101583. [Crossref]
258. Saeed Moshiri, Arian Daneshmand. 2020. How effective is government spending on environmental
protection in a developing country?. Journal of Economic Studies 47:4, 789-803. [Crossref]
259. . References 91-116. [Crossref]
260. Priscilla Massa-Sánchez, Luis Quintana-Romero, Ronny Correa-Quezada, María de la Cruz del
Río-Rama. 2020. Empirical Evidence in Ecuador between Economic Growth and Environmental
Deterioration. Sustainability 12:3, 853. [Crossref]
261. Yangang Fang, Kai Xu, Xiaoyi Guo, Ying Hong. 2020. Identifying determinants of straw open field
burning in northeast China: Toward greening agriculture base in newly industrializing countries.
Journal of Rural Studies 74, 111-123. [Crossref]
262. Arifur Rahman, S. M. Woahid Murad, Fayyaz Ahmad, Xiaowen Wang. 2020. Evaluating the EKC
Hypothesis for the BCIM-EC Member Countries under the Belt and Road Initiative. Sustainability
12:4, 1478. [Crossref]
263. Yi Liu, Liyuan Yang, Wei Jiang. 2020. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the relationship between
water pollution and economic growth: a case study in Nansi Lake catchment, China. Environmental
264. Oluwabunmi Opeyemi Adejumo. 2020. Environmental quality vs economic growth in a developing
economy: complements or conflicts. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27:6, 6163-6179.
[Crossref]
265. Kavi Bhalla, Dinesh Mohan, Brian O’Neill. 2020. What can we learn from the historic road safety
performance of high-income countries?. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
27:1, 27-34. [Crossref]
266. Julia Swart, Lisa Brinkmann. Economic Complexity and the Environment: Evidence from Brazil 3-45.
[Crossref]
267. Daniel Balsalobre-Lorente, Muhammad Shahbaz, Aviral K. Tiwari, Jose C. Jabbour. The Applicability
of the Inflection Point in the Environmental Correction Process 771-779. [Crossref]
268. Shasha Zhao. Healthy Cities and Sustainable Innovation 239-246. [Crossref]
269. Youssef Abdul Razzak Doughan. Factors of Production, Economic Growth, and Sustainable
Development 1-14. [Crossref]
270. Huawen Han, Haiying Huang, Xiangkai Li. Current Policies and Policy Implications for
Environmental Pollution 219-245. [Crossref]
271. Canfei He, Xiyan Mao. Developing Environmental Economic Geography 17-55. [Crossref]
272. Mousa Tawfeeq, Alan R. Collins, Adam Nowak. 2020. The dynamic response of coal consumption
to energy prices and GDP: An ARDL approach to the U.S.. AIMS Energy 8:6, 1156-1172. [Crossref]
273. Faik Bilgili, Recep Ulucak, Emrah Koçak, Salih Çağrı İlkay. 2020. Does globalization matter for
environmental sustainability? Empirical investigation for Turkey by Markov regime switching models.
274. Lev E. Lukianov. 2020. ANALYSIS TOOLS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION IN CHINA.
Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (Geographical Environment and Living Systems) :4,
57-69. [Crossref]
275. Dorota Wawrzyniak, Wirginia Doryń. 2020. Does the quality of institutions modify the economic
growth-carbon dioxide emissions nexus? Evidence from a group of emerging and developing countries.
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 33:1, 124-144. [Crossref]
276. Lyubomira Dimitrova. The economy of Bulgarian Districts and its effect on environmental
performance 85-98. [Crossref]
277. Matthew Ntow-Gyamfi, Godfred A. Bokpin, Anthony Q. Q. Aboagye, Charles Godfred Ackah. 2020.
Environmental sustainability and financial development in Africa; does institutional quality play any
role?. Development Studies Research 7:1, 93-118. [Crossref]
278. Yakubu Awudu Sare. 2019. Effect of financial sector development on energy consumption in Africa:
Is it threshold specific?. International Journal of Green Energy 16:15, 1637-1645. [Crossref]
279. André Barreira da Silva Rocha, Gabriel Meyer Salomão. 2019. Environmental policy regulation and
corporate compliance in evolutionary game models with well-mixed and structured populations.
European Journal of Operational Research 279:2, 486-501. [Crossref]
280. Uwe Deichmann, Anna Reuter, Sebastian Vollmer, Fan Zhang. 2019. The relationship between energy
intensity and economic growth: New evidence from a multi-country multi-sectorial dataset. World
Development 124, 104664. [Crossref]
281. Samuel Adams, Alex O. Acheampong. 2019. Reducing carbon emissions: The role of renewable energy
and democracy. Journal of Cleaner Production 240, 118245. [Crossref]
282. Ming Zhang, Xiaoxiao Liu, Yueting Ding, Wenwen Wang. 2019. How does environmental regulation
affect haze pollution governance?—An empirical test based on Chinese provincial panel data. Science
of The Total Environment 695, 133905. [Crossref]
283. Yu Tu, Benhong Peng, Guo Wei, Ehsan Elahi, Tongrui Yu. 2019. Regional environmental regulation
efficiency: spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factors. Environmental Science and Pollution
284. Ran Xu, Li-Chen Chou, Wan-Hao Zhang. 2019. The effect of CO2 emissions and economic
performance on hydrogen-based renewable production in 35 European Countries. International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy 44:56, 29418-29425. [Crossref]
285. Jaime Alonso-Carrera, Carlos de Miguel, Baltasar Manzano. 2019. Economic Growth and
Environmental Degradation When Preferences are Non-homothetic. Environmental and Resource
286. Michael G. Faure, Roy A. Partain. Environmental Law and Economics 46, . [Crossref]
287. Annie Young Song. 2019. Linking trade and environment in emerging economies: Korea’s ambition
for making green free trade agreements. The Pacific Review 279, 1-30. [Crossref]
288. Daniel Kwabena Twerefou, Wisdom Akpalu, Angela Cindy Emefa Mensah. 2019. Trade-induced
environmental quality: the role of factor endowment and environmental regulation in Africa. Climate
and Development 11:9, 786-798. [Crossref]
289. Panayiotis Tzeremes. 2019. Does the Environmental Kuznets Curve Exist in the Chinese Regions?.
Global Economic Review 48:4, 363-377. [Crossref]
290. Thai-Ha Le, Youngho Chang, Donghyun Park. 2019. Economic development and environmental
sustainability: evidence from Asia. Empirical Economics 57:4, 1129-1156. [Crossref]
291. Bo Pieter Johannes Andrée, Andres Chamorro, Phoebe Spencer, Eric Koomen, Harun Dogo. 2019.
Revisiting the relation between economic growth and the environment; a global assessment of
deforestation, pollution and carbon emission. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114, 109221.
[Crossref]
292. Stéphane Bouché, Carlos de Miguel. 2019. Endogenous aspirations, growth and the rise of
environmental concerns. Energy Economics 84, 104526. [Crossref]
293. Edward B. Barbier. Natural Resources and Economic Development 9, . [Crossref]
294. Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie, Vladimir Strezov, Yijiao Jiang, Tim Evans. 2019. Proximate determinants
of particulate matter (PM2.5) emission, mortality and life expectancy in Europe, Central Asia,
Australia, Canada and the US. Science of The Total Environment 683, 489-497. [Crossref]
295. Rainald Borck, Michael Pflüger. 2019. Green cities? Urbanization, trade, and the environment. Journal
of Regional Science 59:4, 743-766. [Crossref]
296. C. Magazzino, G. Cerulli. 2019. The determinants of CO 2 emissions in MENA countries: a
responsiveness scores approach. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 26:6,
522-534. [Crossref]
297. Ekundayo P. Mesagan, Wakeel A. Isola, Kazeem B. Ajide. 2019. The capital investment channel of
environmental improvement: evidence from BRICS. Environment, Development and Sustainability 21:4,
1561-1582. [Crossref]
298. Luca Coscieme, Paul Sutton, Lars F. Mortensen, Ida Kubiszewski, Robert Costanza, Katherine
Trebeck, Federico M. Pulselli, Biagio F. Giannetti, Lorenzo Fioramonti. 2019. Overcoming the Myths
of Mainstream Economics to Enable a New Wellbeing Economy. Sustainability 11:16, 4374. [Crossref]
299. Ralph P. Hall, Robert Ashford, Nicholas A. Ashford, Johan Arango-Quiroga. 2019. Universal
Basic Income and Inclusive Capitalism: Consequences for Sustainability. Sustainability 11:16, 4481.
[Crossref]
300. Yi Liu, Zhengxian Zhang, Fengxian Zhang. 2019. Challenges for Water Security and Sustainable
Socio-Economic Development: A Case Study of Industrial, Domestic Water Use and Pollution
Management in Shandong, China. Water 11:8, 1630. [Crossref]
301. Octavio Fernández-Amador, Doris A. Oberdabernig, Patrick Tomberger. 2019. Testing for
Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Using a Bayesian Robust Structural Model. Environmental
and Resource Economics 73:4, 1265-1286. [Crossref]
302. Halit Levent ORMAN, Servet CEYLAN, Burcu YILMAZ ŞAHİN. 2019. DIŞ TİCARET
VE ÇEVRE KİRLİLİĞİ İLİŞKİSİ: PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
1500-1512. [Crossref]
303. Pablo Ponce, Rafael Alvarado, Katerine Ponce, Raquel Alvarado, Danny Granda, Karen Yaguana. 2019.
Green returns of labor income and human capital: Empirical evidence of the environmental behavior
of households in developing countries. Ecological Economics 160, 105-113. [Crossref]
304. Stuart J. Barnes. 2019. Understanding plastics pollution: The role of economic development and
technological research. Environmental Pollution 249, 812-821. [Crossref]
305. Qiang Chen, Hongshan Ai, Yabin Zhang, Jiaxin Hou. 2019. Marketization and water resource
utilization efficiency in China. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems 22, 32-43. [Crossref]
306. Hoong Chen Teo, Alex Mark Lechner, Grant W. Walton, Faith Ka Shun Chan, Ali Cheshmehzangi,
May Tan-Mullins, Hing Kai Chan, Troy Sternberg, Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz. 2019. Environmental
Impacts of Infrastructure Development under the Belt and Road Initiative. Environments 6:6, 72.
[Crossref]
307. Weidong Sun, Zhigang Chen, Danyang Wang. 2019. Can Land Marketization Help Reduce Industrial
Pollution?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16:12, 2213. [Crossref]
308. Hrushikesh Mallick, Hemachandra Padhan, Mantu Kumar Mahalik. 2019. Does skewed pattern of
income distribution matter for the environmental quality? Evidence from selected BRICS economies
with an application of Quantile-on-Quantile regression (QQR) approach. Energy Policy 129, 120-131.
[Crossref]
309. Megha Jain, Aishwarya Nagpal. 2019. Relationship Between Environmental Sustainability and Human
Development Index: A Case of Selected South Asian Nations. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective
23:2, 125-133. [Crossref]
310. Haoran Yang, Hao Zheng, Hongguang Liu, Qun Wu. 2019. NonLinear Effects of Environmental
Regulation on Eco-Efficiency under the Constraint of Land Use Carbon Emissions: Evidence Based
on a Bootstrapping Approach and Panel Threshold Model. International Journal of Environmental
311. Rajan Parajuli, Omkar Joshi, Tek Maraseni. 2019. Incorporating Forests, Agriculture, and Energy
Consumption in the Framework of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Dynamic Panel Data
Approach. Sustainability 11:9, 2688. [Crossref]
312. Zhang Fanyong, Du Yueping. 2019. Evaluating the efficiency of sub regional environmental regulations
in China. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 267:3, 032095. [Crossref]
313. M. Ershad Hussain, Mahfuzul Haque. 2019. Is there any link between economic growth and earth's
environment? Evidence from 127 countries for the period 2007–2015. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Policy 8:2, 193-208. [Crossref]
314. Kunlun Wang, Hongchun Yin, Yiwen Chen. 2019. The effect of environmental regulation on air
quality: A study of new ambient air quality standards in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 215,
268-279. [Crossref]
315. Qingshan Chen, Shah Muhammad Kamran, Hongzhong Fan. 2019. Real estate investment and energy
efficiency: Evidence from China's policy experiment. Journal of Cleaner Production 217, 440-447.
[Crossref]
316. George E. Halkos, Christina Bampatsou. 2019. Economic growth and environmental degradation: a
conditional nonparametric frontier analysis. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 21:2, 325-347.
[Crossref]
317. Yanan Wang, Yihui Zuo, Wei Li, Yanqing Kang, Wei Chen, Minjuan Zhao, Haibin Chen. 2019.
Does environmental regulation affect CO2 emissions? Analysis based on threshold effect model. Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy 21:3, 565-577. [Crossref]
318. Andrew A. Alola. 2019. Carbon emissions and the trilemma of trade policy, migration policy and
health care in the US. Carbon Management 10:2, 209-218. [Crossref]
319. Ian Coxhead. 2019. Environmentalism with Chinese Characteristics—A Review of Matthew E. Kahn
and Siqi Zheng’s Blue Skies over Beijing: Economic Growth and the Environment in China. Journal
of Economic Literature 57:1, 161-179. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
320. Manel Kamoun, Ines Abdelkafi, Abdelfetah Ghorbel. 2019. The Impact of Renewable Energy on
Sustainable Growth: Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy
10:1, 221-237. [Crossref]
321. Chun-Ping Chang, Minyi Dong, Bo Sui, Yin Chu. 2019. Driving forces of global carbon emissions:
From time- and spatial-dynamic perspectives. Economic Modelling 77, 70-80. [Crossref]
322. Xudong Chen, Bihong Huang, Chin-Te Lin. 2019. Environmental awareness and environmental
Kuznets curve. Economic Modelling 77, 2-11. [Crossref]
323. Frank Pothen, Heinz Welsch. 2019. Economic development and material use. Evidence from
international panel data. World Development 115, 107-119. [Crossref]
324. Andrew A. Alola. 2019. The trilemma of trade, monetary and immigration policies in the United
States: Accounting for environmental sustainability. Science of The Total Environment 658, 260-267.
[Crossref]
325. Mayula Chaikumbung, Hristos Doucouliagos, Helen Scarborough. 2019. Institutions, Culture, and
Wetland Values. Ecological Economics 157, 195-204. [Crossref]
326. Dong-Hyeon Kim, Yu-Bo Suen, Shu-Chin Lin. 2019. Carbon dioxide emissions and trade: Evidence
from disaggregate trade data. Energy Economics 78, 13-28. [Crossref]
327. Ali Fakih, Walid Marrouch. 2019. Environmental Kuznets Curve, a Mirage? A Non-parametric
Analysis for MENA Countries. International Advances in Economic Research 25:1, 113-119. [Crossref]
328. Helmut Wagner. 2019. On the (Non-)sustainability of China’s Development Strategies 1. The Chinese
Economy 52:1, 1-23. [Crossref]
329. Cesar Augusto Ruiz–Agudelo, German Sánchez Pérez, Jorge Enrique Sáenz, Luz Aydée Higuera
Cárdenas. 2019. Biodiversity and growth in Colombia, 1995–2015: an approach from the
environmental kuznets hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 8:1, 17-31.
[Crossref]
330. Vladimir Udalov. The Impact of Natural Disasters on Individuals’ Choice Between Economic Growth
and Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from the World Values Survey 15-30. [Crossref]
331. Shasha Zhao. Healthy Cities and Sustainable Innovation 1-8. [Crossref]
332. Raymond J. MacDermott, A. Basuchoudhary, J. Bang. Trade, Trade Agreements, and the
Environment 107-112. [Crossref]
333. Burcu Özcan, Ilhan Öztürk. A Historical Perspective on Environmental Kuznets Curve 1-7. [Crossref]
334. Avik Sinha, Muhammad Shahbaz, Daniel Balsalobre. Data Selection and Environmental Kuznets
Curve Models - Environmental Kuznets Curve Models, Data Choice, Data Sources, Missing Data,
Balanced and Unbalanced Panels 65-83. [Crossref]
335. Ahsan Kibria, Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, Reza Oladi. 2019. Fossil fuel share in the energy mix and
economic growth. International Review of Economics & Finance 59, 253-264. [Crossref]
336. Wei Jin, ZhongXiang Zhang. 2019. Capital Accumulation, Green Paradox, and Stranded Assets: An
Endogenous Growth Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
337. Tonmoy Chatterjee. Environmental Regulation, International Trade, and Informal Sector 80-106.
[Crossref]
338. Zhaohai Bai, Jun Zhao, Zhibiao Wei, Xinpeng Jin, Lin Ma. 2019. Socio-economic drivers of pig
production and their effects on achieving sustainable development goals in China. Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences 16:1, 141-155. [Crossref]
339. Sabrina Auci, Giovanni Trovato. 2018. The environmental Kuznets curve within European countries
and sectors: greenhouse emission, production function and technology. Economia Politica 35:3,
895-915. [Crossref]
340. Kinga Krauze, Renata Włodarczyk-Marciniak. 2018. Defining the risk to water and natural capital
in cities with risk component analysis tool (DAPSET): Case study Łódź. Journal of Environmental
Management 227, 62-72. [Crossref]
341. Tobias Böhmelt, Farzad Vaziri, Hugh Ward. 2018. Does green taxation drive countries towards the
carbon efficiency frontier?. Journal of Public Policy 38:4, 481-509. [Crossref]
342. Yahua Wang, Tingting Wan, Cecilia Tortajada. 2018. Water Demand Framework and Water
Development: The Case of China. Water 10:12, 1860. [Crossref]
343. Min Gyo Koo, Seo Young Kim. 2018. East Asian Way of Linking the Environment to Trade in Free
Trade Agreements. The Journal of Environment & Development 27:4, 382-414. [Crossref]
344. Aaqib Ahmad Bhat, Prajna Paramita Mishra. 2018. The Kyoto Protocol and CO 2 emission: is India
still hibernating?. Indian Growth and Development Review 11:2, 152-168. [Crossref]
345. Jonas Gamso. 2018. Environmental policy impacts of trade with China and the moderating effect of
governance. Environmental Policy and Governance 28:6, 395-405. [Crossref]
346. Xiyan Mao, Canfei He. 2018. A trade-related pollution trap for economies in transition? Evidence
from China. Journal of Cleaner Production 200, 781-790. [Crossref]
347. Sudeshna Ghosh. 2018. Globalization and Environment: An Asian Experience. Journal of International
Commerce, Economics and Policy 09:03, 1850010. [Crossref]
348. Ningli Wang, Huiming Zhu, Yawei Guo, Cheng Peng. 2018. The heterogeneous effect of democracy,
political globalization, and urbanization on PM2.5 concentrations in G20 countries: Evidence from
panel quantile regression. Journal of Cleaner Production 194, 54-68. [Crossref]
349. Zorzeta Bakaki, Thomas Bernauer. 2018. Do economic conditions affect public support for
environmental policy?. Journal of Cleaner Production 195, 66-78. [Crossref]
350. Yoomi Kim, Katsuya Tanaka, Chazhong Ge. 2018. Estimating the provincial environmental Kuznets
curve in China: a geographically weighted regression approach. Stochastic Environmental Research and
Risk Assessment 32:7, 2147-2163. [Crossref]
351. Jung Choi, Doo Han. 2018. The Links between Environmental Innovation and Environmental
Performance: Evidence for High- and Middle-Income Countries. Sustainability 10:7, 2157. [Crossref]
352. Alexandre Hebil Ramos, Mara Madaleno, Celeste Amorim Varum. An Analysis of the Environmental
Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis in Portugal: Sector Data and Innovation Effects 1-6. [Crossref]
353. O. Ikporukpo Chris. 2018. Urbanization and the environment: The debate and evidence from two new
cities in Nigeria. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 11:5, 61-79. [Crossref]
354. Balint Horvath, Edmund Mallinguh, Csaba Fogarassy. 2018. Designing Business Solutions for Plastic
Waste Management to Enhance Circular Transitions in Kenya. Sustainability 10:5, 1664. [Crossref]
355. Abdalla Sirag, Bolaji Tunde Matemilola, Siong Hook Law, A. N Bany-Ariffin. 2018. Does
environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis exist? Evidence from dynamic panel threshold. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Policy 7:2, 145-165. [Crossref]
356. Victor Moutinho, Celeste Varum, Jorge Mota. 2018. The environment–growth dilemma: new evidence
using a panel cointegration approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 7:2, 166-183.
[Crossref]
357. Jacint Balaguer, Manuel Cantavella. 2018. The role of education in the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
Evidence from Australian data. Energy Economics 70, 289-296. [Crossref]
358. Christian Bjørnskov. 2018. Do Liberalising Reforms Harm the Environment? Evidence from the Post-
Communist Transition. Economic Affairs 38:1, 22-37. [Crossref]
359. Yee Van Fan, Petar Sabev Varbanov, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Andreja Nemet. 2018. Process efficiency
optimisation and integration for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 174, 177-183.
[Crossref]
360. Patrick Wijaya Tjoek, Pei-Ing Wu. 2018. Exploring the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 and
SO2 for Southeast Asia in the 21st century context. Environmental Economics 9:1, 7-21. [Crossref]
361. Manuel A. Zambrano-Monserrate, Christopher Carvajal-Lara, Roberto Urgiles-Sanchez. 2018. Is
there an inverted U -shaped curve? Empirical analysis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in
Singapore. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 25:1-2, 145-162. [Crossref]
362. Vinicius A. Vale, Fernando S. Perobelli, Ariaster B. Chimeli. 2018. International trade, pollution, and
economic structure: evidence on CO 2 emissions for the North and the South. Economic Systems
363. Mumin Atalay Cetin. 2018. Investigating the environmental Kuznets Curve and the role of green
energy: Emerging and developed markets. International Journal of Green Energy 15:1, 37-44. [Crossref]
364. Ceyda Erden Özsoy. Kuznets’s Inverted U Hypothesis: The Relationship Between Economic
Development and Ecological Footprint 242-251. [Crossref]
365. Laura Policardo. Myopia of Governments and Optimality of Irreversible Pollution Accumulation
331-368. [Crossref]
366. Elif Nuroglu, Robert M. Kunst. Kuznets and Environmental Kuznets Curves for Developing Countries
175-188. [Crossref]
367. George Halkos, Argyro Zisiadou. 2018. Relating environmental performance with socioeconomic and
cultural factors. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 20:1, 69-88. [Crossref]
368. David I. Stern. The Environmental Kuznets Curve ☆ . [Crossref]
369. David C. Broadstock, Alan Collins, Lester C. Hunt, Konstantinos Vergos. 2018. Voluntary disclosure,
greenhouse gas emissions and business performance: Assessing the first decade of reporting. The British
Accounting Review 50:1, 48-59. [Crossref]
370. Abid Rashid Gill, Kuperan K. Viswanathan, Sallahuddin Hassan. 2018. The Environmental Kuznets
Curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
81, 1636-1642. [Crossref]
371. Amran Md. Rasli, Muhammad Imran Qureshi, Aliyu Isah-Chikaji, Khalid Zaman, Mehboob Ahmad.
2018. New toxics, race to the bottom and revised environmental Kuznets curve: The case of local and
global pollutants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81, 3120-3130. [Crossref]
372. C.-Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, Krishna P. Paudel, Mahesh Pandit. 2018. One shape does not fit all: A
nonparametric instrumental variable approach to estimating the income-pollution relationship at the
global Level. Water Resources and Economics 21, 3-16. [Crossref]
373. Yingrong Wen, Gerrit Schoups, Nick van de Giesen. 2018. Global impacts of the meat trade on
in-stream organic river pollution: the importance of spatially distributed hydrological conditions.
Environmental Research Letters 13:1, 014013. [Crossref]
374. Paul B. Stretesky, Ruth E. McKie, Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett. 2018.
Where have all the falcons gone? Saker falcon (falco cherrug) exports in a global economy. Global
Ecology and Conservation 13, e00372. [Crossref]
375. Dengke Chen, Shiyi Chen, Hao Jin. 2018. Industrial agglomeration and CO2 emissions: Evidence
from 187 Chinese prefecture-level cities over 2005–2013. Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 993-1003.
[Crossref]
376. Ralph De Haas, Alexander A. Popov. 2018. Financial Development and Industrial Pollution. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
379. Hatice Özkoç, Aynur Yıldırım, Emir Kudubeş. 2017. ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS EĞRİSİNİN
GEÇERLİLİĞİNİN DÜŞÜK VE ÜST ORTA GELİRLİ ÜLKELER İÇİN SINANMASI:
1964-2009 DÖNEMİ - TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE VALIDITY FOR
THE LOWER AND UPPER MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRIES: 1964-2009 PERIOD. Mehmet
Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 327-340. [Crossref]
380. Paolo Buonanno, Leopoldo Fergusson, Juan F. Vargas. 2017. The Crime Kuznets Curve. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 33:4, 753-782. [Crossref]
381. Suxia Liu, Yingming Zhu, Kuanqi Du. 2017. The impact of industrial agglomeration on industrial
pollutant emission: evidence from China under New Normal. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy 19:9, 2327-2334. [Crossref]
382. Sabuj Kumar Mandal, Devleena Chakravarty. 2017. Role of energy in estimating turning point of
Environmental Kuznets Curve: an econometric analysis of the existing studies. Journal of Social and
Economic Development 19:2, 387-401. [Crossref]
383. George Marbuah, Franklin Amuakwa-Mensah. 2017. Spatial analysis of emissions in Sweden. Energy
Economics 68, 383-394. [Crossref]
384. Sumin Park, Yong-Gil Lee. 2017. An Analysis of Decision Factors on the Price of South Korea’s
Certified Emission Reductions in Use of Vector Error Correction Model. Sustainability 9:10, 1768.
[Crossref]
385. Genovaitė Liobikienė, Mindaugas Butkus. 2017. Environmental Kuznets Curve of greenhouse gas
emissions including technological progress and substitution effects. Energy 135, 237-248. [Crossref]
386. Tobias Böhmelt. 2017. Employing the shared socioeconomic pathways to predict CO 2 emissions.
Environmental Science & Policy 75, 56-64. [Crossref]
387. A. Rajeev, Rupesh K. Pati, Sidhartha S. Padhi, Kannan Govindan. 2017. Evolution of sustainability in
supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 162, 299-314. [Crossref]
388. Song Ding, Yao-Guo Dang, Xue-Mei Li, Jun-Jie Wang, Kai Zhao. 2017. Forecasting Chinese CO2
emissions from fuel combustion using a novel grey multivariable model. Journal of Cleaner Production
162, 1527-1538. [Crossref]
389. Duc Khuong Nguyen, Benoît Sévi, Bo Sjö, Gazi Salah Uddin. 2017. The role of trade openness and
investment in examining the energy-growth-pollution nexus: empirical evidence for China and India.
Applied Economics 49:40, 4083-4098. [Crossref]
390. Meng-jieu Chen. 2017. Environmental governance: disentangling the relationship between economic
growth and rule of law on environmental policy stringency. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences
10:2, 253-275. [Crossref]
391. Frédéric Docquier, Joël Machado. 2017. Income Disparities, Population and Migration Flows Over the
Twenty First Century. Italian Economic Journal 3:2, 125-149. [Crossref]
392. Eckehard Rosenbaum. 2017. Green Growth—Magic Bullet or Damp Squib?. Sustainability 9:7, 1092.
[Crossref]
393. Chiara Amini, Silvia Dal Bianco. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and Latin American firm
performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 17:3, 403-445.
[Crossref]
394. Bianca Oehl, Lena Maria Schaffer, Thomas Bernauer. 2017. How to measure public demand for
policies when there is no appropriate survey data?. Journal of Public Policy 37:2, 173-204. [Crossref]
395. Solomon Aboagye. 2017. Economic Expansion and Environmental Sustainability Nexus in Ghana.
African Development Review 29:2, 155-168. [Crossref]
396. Steven J. Lade, L. Jamila Haider, Gustav Engström, Maja Schlüter. 2017. Resilience offers escape from
trapped thinking on poverty alleviation. Science Advances 3:5. . [Crossref]
397. Octavio Fernández-Amador, Joseph F. Francois, Doris A. Oberdabernig, Patrick Tomberger. 2017.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Economic Growth: An Assessment Based on Production and
Consumption Emission Inventories. Ecological Economics 135, 269-279. [Crossref]
398. Malcolm Fairbrother. 2017. Environmental attitudes and the politics of distrust. Sociology Compass
11:5, e12482. [Crossref]
399. Sujata Upgupta, Prasoon Singh. 2017. Impacts of Coal mining: a Review of Methods and Parameters
Used in India. Current World Environment 12:1, 142-156. [Crossref]
400. Iddisah Sulemana, Harvey S. James, James S. Rikoon. 2017. Environmental Kuznets Curves for
air pollution in African and developed countries: exploring turning point incomes and the role of
democracy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6:2, 134-152. [Crossref]
401. Chad M. Baum, Christian Gross. 2017. Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a
framework for environmentally significant behavioral change. Journal of Bioeconomics 19:1, 53-95.
[Crossref]
402. David I. Stern. 2017. The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics 19:1,
7-28. [Crossref]
403. Mare Sarr, Tim Swanson. 2017. Will Technological Change Save the World? The Rebound Effect
in International Transfers of Technology. Environmental and Resource Economics 66:3, 577-604.
[Crossref]
404. Najid Ahmad, Liangsheng Du. 2017. Effects of energy production and CO 2 emissions on economic
growth in Iran: ARDL approach. Energy 123, 521-537. [Crossref]
405. Martin Neve, Bertrand Hamaide. 2017. Environmental Kuznets Curve with Adjusted Net Savings
as a Trade-Off Between Environment and Development. Australian Economic Papers 56:1, 39-58.
[Crossref]
406. Barry Naughton. 2017. Is China Socialist?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31:1, 3-24. [Abstract]
[View PDF article] [PDF with links]
407. Siqi Zheng, Matthew E. Kahn. 2017. A New Era of Pollution Progress in Urban China?. Journal of
Economic Perspectives 31:1, 71-92. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
408. Jinjin Zhao. 2017. The cubic water Kuznets curve: patterns of urban water consumption and water
policy effects. Water Policy 19:1, 28-45. [Crossref]
409. Jaroslav Kreuz, Aleš Lisa, Petr Šauer. 2017. Environmental Kuznets Curve: Application for the Czech
Republic for the Time Period 1975-2012. Politická ekonomie 65:1, 119-130. [Crossref]
410. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2017. Concern For Global Warming In Six Islamic Nations: A Multilevel
Bayesian Analysis. Sustainable Development 25:1, 63-76. [Crossref]
411. Stephan Ortmann. Introduction: The Environmental Challenges in Vietnam 1-34. [Crossref]
412. Elif Nuroglu, Robert M. Kunst. Kuznets and Environmental Kuznets Curves for Developing Countries
1-14. [Crossref]
413. Patrick Habiyaremye, Dan Ayebale, Seperia B. Wanyama. Job-Rotation, Utilization of Workshops, and
Performance of SMEs: An Empirical Study from the Gasabo District in Rwanda 187-204. [Crossref]
414. Imad A. Moosa. Economic Growth as a Cause of Environmental Degradation: The Australian
Experience 227-250. [Crossref]
415. Salvatore Bimonte, Arsenio Stabile. 2017. Land consumption and income in Italy: a case of inverted
EKC. Ecological Economics 131, 36-43. [Crossref]
416. Avik Sinha, Joysankar Bhattacharya. 2017. Estimation of environmental Kuznets curve for SO 2
emission: A case of Indian cities. Ecological Indicators 72, 881-894. [Crossref]
417. Samia Nasreen, Sofia Anwar, Ilhan Ozturk. 2017. Financial stability, energy consumption and
environmental quality: Evidence from South Asian economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 67, 1105-1122. [Crossref]
418. John Joshua. Introduction 1-9. [Crossref]
419. John Joshua. Economic Growth and Sustainable Economic Development 11-43. [Crossref]
420. Bidisha Lahiri. 2017. Dissimilar Relations Between Income and Environmental Quality for Open
Economies in a Growth Model. Eastern Economic Journal 43:1, 104-127. [Crossref]
421. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz. 2017. Trade and Environmental Quality in African Countries: Do Institutions
Matter?. Eastern Economic Journal 43:1, 155-172. [Crossref]
422. Jianmin Liu, Xia Chen, Runchu Wei. 2017. Socioeconomic Drivers of Environmental Pollution in
China: A Spatial Econometric Analysis. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2017, 1-13. [Crossref]
423. Wei Jin. 2017. Optimal Growth with Resource Exhaustibility and Pollution Externality. SSRN
424. Lily Y.W. Hsueh. 2017. What Explains Participation and Effort in Voluntary Climate Action by
Businesses?: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
425. Frrddric Docquier, Joel Machado. 2017. Income Disparities, Population and Migration Flows Over the
21st Century. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
426. Clinton Levitt, Morten Saaby Pedersen, Anders Sorensen. 2017. The Impact of China's Trade
Liberalisation on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of WTO Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
427. Gail Cohen, João Tovar Jalles, Prakash Loungani, Ricardo Marto. 2017. Emissions and Growth:
Trends and Cycles in a Globalized World. IMF Working Papers 17:191, 1. [Crossref]
428. Christopher A. Hartwell. 2016. The institutional basis of efficiency in resource-rich countries.
Economic Systems 40:4, 519-538. [Crossref]
429. Ernest Nti Acheampong, Mark Swilling, Kevin Urama. 2016. Developing a framework for supporting
the implementation of integrated water resource management (IWRM) with a decoupling strategy.
Water Policy 18:6, 1317-1333. [Crossref]
430. Georgia Mavrommati, Kostas Bithas, Mark E. Borsuk, Richard B. Howarth. 2016. Integration
of ecological–biological thresholds in conservation decision making. Conservation Biology 30:6,
1173-1181. [Crossref]
431. Barry W. Brook, Linus Blomqvist. 2016. Innovations and limits in methods of forecasting global
environmental change. Basic and Applied Ecology 17:7, 565-575. [Crossref]
432. Yogi Sugiawan, Shunsuke Managi. 2016. The environmental Kuznets curve in Indonesia: Exploring
the potential of renewable energy. Energy Policy 98, 187-198. [Crossref]
433. Yinger Zheng, Haixia Zheng, Xinyue Ye. 2016. Using Machine Learning in Environmental Tax
Reform Assessment for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Hubei Province, China.
Sustainability 8:11, 1124. [Crossref]
434. Andrew Bell, Wei Zhang. 2016. Payments discourage coordination in ecosystem services provision:
evidence from behavioral experiments in Southeast Asia. Environmental Research Letters 11:11, 114024.
[Crossref]
435. Mahesh Pandit, Krishna P. Paudel. 2016. Water pollution and income relationships: A seemingly
unrelated partially linear analysis. Water Resources Research 52:10, 7668-7689. [Crossref]
436. Malcolm Fairbrother. 2016. Externalities: why environmental sociology should bring them in.
Environmental Sociology 2:4, 375-384. [Crossref]
437. John McCollough, Miao He, Arzu Tay Bayramoglu. 2016. Pollution Havens and Their Relationship to
the Environmental Kuznets Curve: The Case of the us Tyre Industry. Economic Affairs 36:3, 258-272.
[Crossref]
438. Boqiang Lin, Oluwasola E. Omoju, Ngozi M. Nwakeze, Jennifer U. Okonkwo, Ebenezer T.
Megbowon. 2016. Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis a sound basis for environmental
policy in Africa?. Journal of Cleaner Production 133, 712-724. [Crossref]
439. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2016. Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control
and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations. Social Indicators Research
128:3, 1273-1298. [Crossref]
440. Michaël Aklin. 2016. Re-exploring the Trade and Environment Nexus Through the Diffusion of
Pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics 64:4, 663-682. [Crossref]
441. Xiaosheng Li, Xia Yan, Qingxian An, Ke Chen, Zhen Shen. 2016. The coordination between China’s
economic growth and environmental emission from the Environmental Kuznets Curve viewpoint.
Natural Hazards 83:1, 233-252. [Crossref]
442. Daniel Balsalobre Lorente, Agustín Álvarez-Herranz. 2016. Economic growth and energy regulation
in the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23:16, 16478-16494.
[Crossref]
443. Muhammad Shahbaz, Sakiru Adebola Solarin, Ilhan Ozturk. 2016. Environmental Kuznets Curve
hypothesis and the role of globalization in selected African countries. Ecological Indicators 67, 623-636.
[Crossref]
444. Jin Guo, Yingzhi Xu, Zhengning Pu. 2016. Urbanization and Its Effects on Industrial Pollutant
Emissions: An Empirical Study of a Chinese Case with the Spatial Panel Model. Sustainability 8:8,
812. [Crossref]
445. Risto Herrala, Rajeev K. Goel. 2016. Sharing the emission reduction burden in an uneven world.
Energy Policy 94, 29-39. [Crossref]
446. Xian-Liang Tian, Qi-Guang Guo, Chao Han, Najid Ahmad. 2016. Different extent of environmental
information disclosure across chinese cities: Contributing factors and correlation with local pollution.
Global Environmental Change 39, 244-257. [Crossref]
447. Fei Li, Shengkui Cheng, Huilu Yu, Dewei Yang. 2016. Waste from livestock and poultry breeding and
its potential assessment of biogas energy in rural China. Journal of Cleaner Production 126, 451-460.
[Crossref]
448. María del P. Pablo-Romero, Josué De Jesús. 2016. Economic growth and energy consumption: The
Energy-Environmental Kuznets Curve for Latin America and the Caribbean. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 60, 1343-1350. [Crossref]
449. Seck Tan. 2016. Framework for valuing the utilization of the environment. International Journal of
Social Economics 43:6, 619-642. [Crossref]
450. Aslan Alper, Gozbasi Onur. 2016. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for sub-elements of the
carbon emissions in China. Natural Hazards 82:2, 1327-1340. [Crossref]
451. Klas Rönnbäck, Staffan Granér. 2016. Historicizing the environmental Kuznets Curve: water pollution
in Göta Älv, Sweden, 1895–2000. Water History 8:2, 95-114. [Crossref]
452. Sandeep Mohapatra, Wiktor Adamowicz, Peter Boxall. 2016. Dynamic technique and scale effects of
economic growth on the environment. Energy Economics 57, 256-264. [Crossref]
453. Jeffery S. McMullen, Benjamin J. Warnick. 2016. Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a
Hybrid Organization?. Journal of Management Studies 53:4, 630-662. [Crossref]
454. Kavi Bhalla, Dinesh Mohan. Understanding the Road Safety Performance of OECD Countries 1-15.
[Crossref]
455. Octavio Fernández-Amador, Joseph F. Francois, Patrick Tomberger. 2016. Carbon dioxide emissions
and international trade at the turn of the millennium. Ecological Economics 125, 14-26. [Crossref]
456. Tobias S. Schmidt, Joern Huenteler. 2016. Anticipating industry localization effects of clean
technology deployment policies in developing countries. Global Environmental Change 38, 8-20.
[Crossref]
457. Zhang Yu. How to improve the environmental quality of China from the perspective of fiscal policy?
213-215. [Crossref]
458. Piero Esposito, Fabrzio Patriarca, Luigi Perini, Luca Salvati. 2016. Land degradation, economic
growth and structural change: evidences from Italy. Environment, Development and Sustainability 18:2,
431-448. [Crossref]
459. Dakshina G. De Silva, Timothy P. Hubbard, Anita R. Schiller. 2016. Entry and Exit Patterns of
“Toxic” Firms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 98:3, 881-909. [Crossref]
460. Anton Nahman, Brian K. Mahumani, Willem J. de Lange. 2016. Beyond GDP: Towards a Green
Economy Index. Development Southern Africa 33:2, 215-233. [Crossref]
461. Bruce G. Carruthers, Naomi R. Lamoreaux. 2016. Regulatory Races: The Effects of Jurisdictional
Competition on Regulatory Standards. Journal of Economic Literature 54:1, 52-97. [Abstract] [View
PDF article] [PDF with links]
462. Shujing Yue, Yang Yang, Yaoyu Hu. 2016. Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Green Growth?
Evidence from China’s Experience. Sustainability 8:2, 158. [Crossref]
463. Gayathri Devi Mekala, Brian Davidson. 2016. A review of literature on the factors affecting wastewater
treatment and recycling across a broad spectrum of economic stages of development. Water Policy
18:1, 217-234. [Crossref]
464. Thomas Sommerer, Sijeong Lim. 2016. The environmental state as a model for the world? An analysis
of policy repertoires in 37 countries. Environmental Politics 25:1, 92-115. [Crossref]
465. Katsuhisa Uchiyama. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis 11-29. [Crossref]
466. Jacint Balaguer, Manuel Cantavella. 2016. Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for Spain by
considering fuel oil prices (1874–2011). Ecological Indicators 60, 853-859. [Crossref]
467. Leonid G. Melnyk, Oleksandr V. Kubatko, Oleksandra V. Kubatko. 2016. Were Ukrainian regions
too different to start interregional confrontation: economic, social and ecological convergence aspects?.
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 29:1, 573-582. [Crossref]
468. Wei Jin, ZhongXiang Zhang. 2016. China's Pursuit of Environmentally Sustainable Development:
Harnessing the New Engine of Technological Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
469. Andreas Schaefer. 2016. Survival to Adulthood and the Growth Drag of Pollution. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
470. Goher-Ur-Rehman Mir, Servaas Storm. 2016. Carbon Emissions and Economic Growth: Production-
Based versus Consumption-Based Evidence on Decoupling. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
471. Gregor Semieniuk. 2016. Fossil Energy in Economic Growth: A Study of the Energy Direction of
Technical Change, 1950-2012. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
472. Ha Thai Le, Youngho Chang. 2016. Governance, Vulnerability to Climate Change, and Green Growth:
International Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
473. Tonmoy Chatterjee, Soumyananda Dinda. Climate Change, Human Health and Some Economic
Issues 26-41. [Crossref]
474. Tonmoy Chatterjee, Soumyananda Dinda. Climate Change, Human Health and Some Economic
Issues 1971-1986. [Crossref]
475. Amarendra Pratap Singh, K. Narayanan. 2015. Impact of economic growth and population on
agrochemical use: evidence from post-liberalization India. Environment, Development and Sustainability
17:6, 1509-1525. [Crossref]
476. Adnen Ben Nasr, Rangan Gupta, João Ricardo Sato. 2015. Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve
for South Africa? A co-summability approach using a century of data. Energy Economics 52, 136-141.
[Crossref]
477. Italo Arbulú, Javier Lozano, Javier Rey-Maquieira. 2015. Tourism and solid waste generation in
Europe: A panel data assessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Waste Management 46, 628-636.
[Crossref]
478. Zhongwu Lu, Heming Wang, Qiang Yue. 2015. Decoupling Analysis of the Environmental Mountain-
with Case Studies from China. Journal of Industrial Ecology 19:6, 1082-1090. [Crossref]
479. Yu Hao, Zong-Yong Zhang, Hua Liao, Yi-Ming Wei. 2015. China’s farewell to coal: A forecast of
coal consumption through 2020. Energy Policy 86, 444-455. [Crossref]
480. Thomas Bernauer, Quynh Nguyen. 2015. Free Trade and/or Environmental Protection?. Global
481. . Bibliographie 219-226. [Crossref]
482. Linna Chen, Shiyi Chen. 2015. The Estimation of Environmental Kuznets Curve in China:
Nonparametric Panel Approach. Computational Economics 46:3, 405-420. [Crossref]
483. Euston Quah. 2015. Pursuing Economic Growth in Asia: The Environmental Challenge. The World
Economy 38:10, 1487-1504. [Crossref]
484. Ashleigh Keene, Steven C. Deller. 2015. Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets’ Curve among US
Counties and the Impact of Social Capital. International Regional Science Review 38:4, 358-387.
[Crossref]
485. Rohan Terrence Jayasuriya. 2015. Natural resource scarcity - classical to contemporary views. Journal
of Natural Resources Policy Research 7:4, 221-245. [Crossref]
486. Natina Yaduma, Mika Kortelainen, Ada Wossink. 2015. The environmental Kuznets curve at different
levels of economic development: a counterfactual quantile regression analysis for CO 2 emissions.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 4:3, 278-303. [Crossref]
487. Matthew E. Kahn. 2015. A Review of The Age of Sustainable Development by Jeffrey Sachs. Journal
of Economic Literature 53:3, 654-666. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
488. Xiaobing Zhao, Ding Du. 2015. Forecasting carbon dioxide emissions. Journal of Environmental
Management 160, 39-44. [Crossref]
489. Nii Amon Neequaye, Reza Oladi. 2015. Environment, growth, and FDI revisited. International Review
of Economics & Finance 39, 47-56. [Crossref]
490. Lijun Wang, Dequn Zhou, Yongyu Wang, Donglan Zha. 2015. An empirical study of the
environmental Kuznets curve for environmental quality in Gansu province. Ecological Indicators 56,
96-105. [Crossref]
491. Lorena M. D’Agostino. 2015. How MNEs respond to environmental regulation: integrating the Porter
hypothesis and the pollution haven hypothesis. Economia Politica 32:2, 245-269. [Crossref]
492. Anthony L. D'Agostino, Johannes Urpelainen, Alice Xu. 2015. Socio-economic determinants of
charcoal expenditures in Tanzania: Evidence from panel data. Energy Economics 49, 472-481. [Crossref]
493. Pablo Rodrigo, Pablo Muñoz, Alexander Wright. 2015. Transitions dynamics in context: key factors
and alternative paths in the sustainable development of nations. Journal of Cleaner Production 94,
221-234. [Crossref]
494. Lei Wen, Ye Cao. 2015. Factor decomposition analysis of sub-national CO 2 emissions in China: A
dynamic panel approach. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 7:3, 033105. [Crossref]
495. Adrienne M. Ohler. 2015. Factors affecting the rise of renewable energy in the U.S.: Concern over
environmental quality or rising unemployment?. The Energy Journal 36:2. . [Crossref]
496. Giovanni Zurlini, Irene Petrosillo, András Bozsik, Jon Cloud, Roberta Aretano, Noa Kekuewa Lincoln.
2015. Sustainable landscape development and value rigidity: the Pirsig‘s monkey trap. Landscape Online
40, 1-19. [Crossref]
497. Michael Greenstone, B. Kelsey Jack. 2015. Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for an Emerging
Field. Journal of Economic Literature 53:1, 5-42. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
498. Jian Wu, Weiqian Zhang, Jiaxuan Xu, Yue Che. 2015. A quantitative analysis of municipal solid waste
disposal charges in China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 187:3. . [Crossref]
499. Arthur A. van Benthem. 2015. Energy Leapfrogging. Journal of the Association of Environmental and
Resource Economists 2:1, 93-132. [Crossref]
500. Ednilson Sebastião de Ávila, Eliezer Martins Diniz. 2015. Evidências sobre curva ambiental de Kuznets
e convergência das emissões. Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo) 45:1, 97-126. [Crossref]
501. Mary Alice Haddad. 2015. Increasing Environmental Performance in a Context of Low Governmental
Enforcement: Evidence From China. The Journal of Environment & Development 24:1, 3-25. [Crossref]
502. Jean-Thomas Bernard, Michael Gavin, Lynda Khalaf, Marcel Voia. 2015. Environmental Kuznets
Curve: Tipping Points, Uncertainty and Weak Identification. Environmental and Resource Economics
60:2, 285-315. [Crossref]
503. Douglas K. Bardsley. 2015. Limits to adaptation or a second modernity? Responses to climate change
risk in the context of failing socio-ecosystems. Environment, Development and Sustainability 17:1,
41-55. [Crossref]
504. Herath Vidyaratne. 2015. Balancing Economic Growth and Ecological Sustainability in Sri Lanka.
South Asia Research 35:1, 119-133. [Crossref]
505. Jianhua Yin, Mingzheng Zheng, Jian Chen. 2015. The effects of environmental regulation and
technical progress on CO2 Kuznets curve: An evidence from China. Energy Policy 77, 97-108.
[Crossref]
506. C.M. Hall, B. Amelung, S. Cohen, E. Eijgelaar, S. Gössling, J. Higham, R. Leemans, P. Peeters,
Y. Ram, D. Scott. 2015. On climate change skepticism and denial in tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 23:1, 4-25. [Crossref]
507. Martin W. Doyle, Jesko Von Windheim. 2015. Environmental Management Strategy: Four Forces
Analysis. Environmental Management 55:1, 6-18. [Crossref]
508. Tommaso Luzzati. Kuznets Curves 144-149. [Crossref]
509. Lifeng Wu, Sifeng Liu, Dinglin Liu, Zhigeng Fang, Haiyan Xu. 2015. Modelling and forecasting CO
2 emissions in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries using a novel
multi-variable grey model. Energy 79, 489-495. [Crossref]
510. David I. Stern. 2015. The Environmental Kuznets Curve after 25 Years. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
511. Ahmad Assadzadeh, Abdolreza Ghorban-Sabbagh, Alireza Jalili-Marand, Akram Akbari. 2015.
Searching Kuznets Environmental Curve in Selected Islamic Country: A GMM Approach. Journal of
Economics, Business and Management 3:1, 132-135. [Crossref]
512. Carlos A. Flores, Alfonso Flores-Lagunes, Dimitrios Kapetanakis. 2014. Lessons From Quantile Panel
Estimation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Econometric Reviews 33:8, 815-853. [Crossref]
513. Giovanni Bella, Carla Massidda, Paolo Mattana. 2014. The relationship among CO2 emissions,
electricity power consumption and GDP in OECD countries. Journal of Policy Modeling 36:6, 970-985.
[Crossref]
514. Graeme S. Cumming, Andreas Buerkert, Ellen M. Hoffmann, Eva Schlecht, Stephan von Cramon-
Taubadel, Teja Tscharntke. 2014. Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for
ecosystem services. Nature 515:7525, 50-57. [Crossref]
515. Lukas H Meyer, Pranay Sanklecha. 2014. How legitimate expectations matter in climate justice.
Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13:4, 369-393. [Crossref]
516. Christopher B. Barrett, Mark A. Constas. 2014. Toward a theory of resilience for international
development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:40, 14625-14630.
[Crossref]
517. Christopher Marcoux, Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. Profitable Participation: Technology Innovation
as an Influence on the Ratification of Regulatory Treaties. British Journal of Political Science 44:4,
903-936. [Crossref]
518. Ole Martin Lægreid. 2014. Political and Economic Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions – a
Quantitative Study. World Political Science 10:2, 313-341. [Crossref]
519. Shiguo Ma, Lei Shi. 2014. The Micro-foundations of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Fudan
Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 7:3, 471-482. [Crossref]
520. . Bibliography 319-336. [Crossref]
521. Jie Liu, Yunpeng Li, Rehan Sadiq, Yong Deng. 2014. Quantifying influence of weather indices on
PM $$_{2.5}$$ 2.5 based on relation map. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 28:6,
1323-1331. [Crossref]
522. Xinye Zheng, Yihua Yu, Jing Wang, Huihui Deng. 2014. Identifying the determinants and spatial nexus
of provincial carbon intensity in China: a dynamic spatial panel approach. Regional Environmental
Change 14:4, 1651-1661. [Crossref]
523. Magnus Lindmark, Sevil Acar. 2014. The environmental Kuznets curve and the Pasteur effect:
environmental costs in Sweden 1850–2000. European Review of Economic History 18:3, 306-323.
[Crossref]
524. Sung Eun Kim, Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. Technology Competition and International Co-operation:
Friends or Foes?. British Journal of Political Science 44:3, 545-574. [Crossref]
525. Helen Kopnina. 2014. Consumption, waste and (un)sustainable development: reflections on the Dutch
holiday of Queen’s day. Environment Systems and Decisions 34:2, 312-322. [Crossref]
526. Saahil Sundeep Waslekar. 2014. World Environmental Kuznets Curve and the Global Future. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 133, 310-319. [Crossref]
527. Eriko Miyama, Shunsuke Managi. 2014. Global environmental emissions estimate: application of
multiple imputation. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 16:2, 115-135. [Crossref]
528. Eri Saikawa, Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. Environmental standards as a strategy of international
technology transfer. Environmental Science & Policy 38, 192-206. [Crossref]
529. CHING-YAO IRENE LAI, C.C. YANG. 2014. SCALE EFFECT VERSUS INDUCED POLICY
RESPONSE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE: THE CASE OF U.S. WATER
POLLUTION. Contemporary Economic Policy 32:2, 435-450. [Crossref]
530. Leonardo Baccini, Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. Before Ratification: Understanding the Timing
of International Treaty Effects on Domestic Policies. International Studies Quarterly 58:1, 29-43.
[Crossref]
531. Qian Li, Jinping Song, Enru Wang, Hao Hu, Jianhui Zhang, Yeyao Wang. 2014. Economic growth
and pollutant emissions in China: a spatial econometric analysis. Stochastic Environmental Research and
Risk Assessment 28:2, 429-442. [Crossref]
532. Helen Kopnina. 2014. Christmas tale of (un)sustainability: Reflecting on consumption and
environmental awareness on the streets of Amsterdam. Sustainable Cities and Society 10, 65-71.
[Crossref]
533. Kirill Borissov, Thierry Bréchet, Stéphane Lambrecht. Environmental Policy in a Dynamic Model
with Heterogeneous Agents and Voting 37-60. [Crossref]
534. Klaus Dieter John, Michael Apel, Benjamin Häupl, Katharina Weiß. Wirtschaftswachstum und
Nachhaltigkeit aus systemdynamischer Perspektive 139-175. [Crossref]
535. Debesh Chakraborty, Kakali Mukhopadhyay. Introduction 1-21. [Crossref]
536. Thomas Bernauer, Quynh Nguyen. 2014. Concern for the Environment and Individual Attitudes
Towards International Trade in Developing Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
537. Christopher B. Barrett, Mark A Constas. 2014. Toward a Theory of Resilience for International
Development Applications. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
538. Masayuki SATO, Hiroshi SAO, Masafumi MORISUGI, Eiji OHNO. 2014. Study of Adequate Benefit
Index of Water Supply and Sewerage Systems for Developing Countries. Journal of Japan Society of
Civil Engineers, Ser. G (Environmental Research) 70:6, II_319-II_330. [Crossref]
539. José Carlos Orihuela. 2013. Context matters: the significance of non-economic conditions for income–
pollution relationships in Chile and Peru. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 3:4, 391-403.
[Crossref]
540. Yoon Loong (Andrew) Wong, Lynne Lewis. 2013. The disappearing Environmental Kuznets Curve:
A study of water quality in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB). Journal of Environmental Management
131, 415-425. [Crossref]
541. Sulan Chen. 2013. Environmental cooperation in the South China Sea: Factors, actors and
mechanisms. Ocean & Coastal Management 85, 131-140. [Crossref]
542. WenShwo Fang, Stephen M. Miller. 2013. The effect of ESCO s on carbon dioxide emissions. Applied
543. Lan Xu, Xu Chun Wei. 2013. Empirical Research on China's Environmental and Economic
Development. Advanced Materials Research 869-870, 766-772. [Crossref]
544. Marcel Kohler. 2013. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: A South African
perspective. Energy Policy 63, 1042-1050. [Crossref]
545. Andrew Cheon, Johannes Urpelainen. 2013. How do Competing Interest Groups Influence
Environmental Policy? The Case of Renewable Electricity in Industrialized Democracies, 1989–2007.
Political Studies 61:4, 874-897. [Crossref]
546. Thomas Bernauer, Tobias Böhmelt. 2013. Are Economically “Kinder, Gentler Societies” also Greener?.
Environmental Science & Technology 47:21, 11993-12001. [Crossref]
547. George E. Halkos, Nickolaos G. Tzeremes. 2013. Carbon dioxide emissions and governance: A
nonparametric analysis for the G-20. Energy Economics 40, 110-118. [Crossref]
548. Dimitra Kaika, Efthimios Zervas. 2013. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory—Part A:
Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy 62, 1392-1402. [Crossref]
549. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2013. Wealth, Post-materialism and Consumers' Pro-environmental
Intentions: A Multilevel Analysis across 25 Nations. Sustainable Development 21:6, 385-399. [Crossref]
550. Timothy G. Gutowski, Julian M. Allwood, Christoph Herrmann, Sahil Sahni. 2013. A Global
Assessment of Manufacturing: Economic Development, Energy Use, Carbon Emissions, and the
Potential for Energy Efficiency and Materials Recycling. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
38:1, 81-106. [Crossref]
551. Ole Martin Lægreid. 2013. Politiske og økonomiske effekter på utslipp av drivhusgasser – en kvantitativ
studie. Norsk statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift 29:3, 228-257. [Crossref]
552. Marc Jeuland, David Fuente, Semra Özdemir, Maura Allaire, Dale Whittington. Water and Sanitation:
Economic Losses from Poor Water and Sanitation – Past, Present, and Future 303-364. [Crossref]
553. Michaël Aklin, Patrick Bayer, S.P. Harish, Johannes Urpelainen. 2013. Understanding environmental
policy preferences: New evidence from Brazil. Ecological Economics 94, 28-36. [Crossref]
554. Charisma Shont'e Acey, Thomas H. Culhane. 2013. Green jobs, livelihoods and the post-carbon
economy in African cities. Local Environment 18:9, 1046-1065. [Crossref]
555. Heechan Kang. 2013. Effect of Awareness on the Change of Polluting Emission - Analysis of
the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis-. Environmental and Resource Economics Review 22:3,
437-457. [Crossref]
556. Joshua Graff Zivin,, Matthew Neidell. 2013. Environment, Health, and Human Capital. Journal of
Economic Literature 51:3, 689-730. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
557. Siqi Zheng,, Matthew E. Kahn. 2013. Understanding China's Urban Pollution Dynamics. Journal of
Economic Literature 51:3, 731-772. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
558. Chao Wang, Jiang Liu, Li Huang, Wei Li. 2013. Exploring the Relationship between Industrial
Economic Growth and Environmental Pollution - An Empirical Analysis Based on Cointegration and
Granger Causality Test. Applied Mechanics and Materials 423-426, 1377-1382. [Crossref]
559. Travis Roach. 2013. A dynamic state-level analysis of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.
560. Swati Sinha Babu, Soumyendra Kishore Datta. 2013. The relevance of environmental Kuznets curve
(EKC) in a framework of broad-based environmental degradation and modified measure of growth – a
pooled data analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 20:4, 309-316.
[Crossref]
561. Clas Eriksson, Joakim Persson. 2013. Democracy, income and pollution. Environmental Economics and
Policy Studies 15:3, 291-308. [Crossref]
562. Mehdi Abbas. 2013. Libre-échange et changements climatiques : “soutien mutuel” ou divergence ?.
Mondes en développement n° 162:2, 33-48. [Crossref]
563. Hussain A Bekhet, Tahira Yasmin. 2013. Exploring EKC, trends of growth patterns and air pollutants
concentration level in Malaysia: A Nemerow Index Approach. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 16, 012015. [Crossref]
564. Frank Boons. Ecological Modernization and Industrial Ecology 388-402. [Crossref]
565. Thomas Bernauer. 2013. Climate Change Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 16:1, 421-448.
[Crossref]
566. S. Scrieciu, A. Rezai, R. Mechler. 2013. On the economic foundations of green growth discourses:
the case of climate change mitigation and macroeconomic dynamics in economic modeling. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 2:3, 251-268. [Crossref]
567. Andreas Buehn, Mohammad Reza Farzanegan. 2013. Hold your breath: A new index of air pollution.
Energy Economics 37, 104-113. [Crossref]
568. Jennifer Alix-Garcia, Craig McIntosh, Katharine R. E. Sims, Jarrod R. Welch. 2013. The Ecological
Footprint of Poverty Alleviation: Evidence from Mexico's Oportunidades Program. Review of Economics
and Statistics 95:2, 417-435. [Crossref]
569. Christopher B. Barrett, Erwin H. Bulte, Paul Ferraro, Sven Wunder. Economic instruments for nature
conservation 59-73. [Crossref]
570. Kuan-Min Wang. 2013. The relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth:
quantile panel-type analysis. Quality & Quantity 47:3, 1337-1366. [Crossref]
571. Danny T. Wang, Flora F. Gu, David K. Tse, Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim. 2013. When does FDI matter?
The roles of local institutions and ethnic origins of FDI. International Business Review 22:2, 450-465.
[Crossref]
572. Linda Kleemann, Awudu Abdulai. 2013. THE IMPACT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC
GROWTH ON THE ENVIRONMENT: REVISITING THE CROSS-COUNTRY EVIDENCE.
Journal of International Development 25:2, 180-205. [Crossref]
573. Rosa Duarte, Vicente Pinilla, Ana Serrano. 2013. Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for water
use? A panel smooth transition regression approach. Economic Modelling 31, 518-527. [Crossref]
574. Jia-qiang Mao, Jia-jia Wang, Kun Jing. Effect Analysis of FDI on the Construction Industry
Competitiveness 521-529. [Crossref]
575. Thomas Bassetti, Nikos Benos, Stelios Karagiannis. 2013. CO2 Emissions and Income Dynamics:
What Does the Global Evidence Tell Us?. Environmental and Resource Economics 54:1, 101-125.
[Crossref]
576. Valeria Andreoni. 2013. Can Economic Growth be Sustainable? The Case of EU27. Journal of Global
Policy and Governance 1:2, 185-195. [Crossref]
577. Hala Abou-Ali, Yasmine M. Abdelfattah. 2013. Integrated paradigm for sustainable development: A
panel data study. Economic Modelling 30, 334-342. [Crossref]
578. Helen Kopnina. 2013. An Exploratory Case Study of Dutch Children's Attitudes Toward
Consumption: Implications for Environmental Education. The Journal of Environmental Education
44:2, 128-144. [Crossref]
579. Caroline Y. Jo, Lynn White. 2013. Polluted Air or Policy Advance in Hong Kong-Guangdong?. Asian
Politics & Policy 5:1, 77-106. [Crossref]
580. Mariana Conte Grand, Vanesa Valeria D'Elia. 2013. Using the Box-Cox Transformation to
Approximate the Shape of the Relationship between CO2 Emissions and GDP: A Note. SSRN
581. Michael Greenstone, B. Kelsey Jack. 2013. Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for a Young Field.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
582. jonathan Skaza. 2013. The Relationship between Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation:
Exploring Models and Questioning the Existence of an Environmental Kuznets Curve. SSRN Electronic
583. Alexi Thompson. 2013. Accounting for Population in an EKC for Water Pollution. Journal of
Environmental Protection 04:07, 147-150. [Crossref]
584. Krishna P. Paudel, Biswo N. Poudel. 2013. Functional Form of Water Pollutants‐Income Relationship
under the Environmental Kuznets Curve Framework. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95:2,
261-267. [Crossref]
585. Christopher Marcoux, Johannes Urpelainen. 2012. Capacity, not constraints: A theory of North-South
regulatory cooperation. The Review of International Organizations 7:4, 399-424. [Crossref]
586. Wen Shwo Fang, Stephen M. Miller, Chih-Chuan Yeh. 2012. The effect of ESCOs on energy use.
587. Roger Fouquet. 2012. The demand for environmental quality in driving transitions to low-polluting
energy sources. Energy Policy 50, 138-149. [Crossref]
588. Andrea Sarzynski. 2012. Bigger Is Not Always Better: A Comparative Analysis of Cities and their Air
Pollution Impact. Urban Studies 49:14, 3121-3138. [Crossref]
589. Qingsong Wang, Xueliang Yuan, Yanhua Lai, Chunyuan Ma, Wei Ren. 2012. Research on interactive
coupling mechanism and regularity between urbanization and atmospheric environment: a case study
in Shandong Province, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 26:7, 887-898.
[Crossref]
590. Christopher Marcoux, Johannes Urpelainen. 2012. Dynamics of Spatial Interdependence: The
Contingent Effect of International Trade on Voluntary Environmental Standards. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 30:5, 871-890. [Crossref]
591. Richard Kozul-Wright, Piergiuseppe Fortunato. 2012. International Trade and Carbon Emissions. The
European Journal of Development Research 24:4, 509-529. [Crossref]
592. Rebecca M. Bratspies. Assuming away the problem? The vexing relationship between international
trade and environmental protection 227-253. [Crossref]
593. Nada Denona Bogović, Saša Čegar. 2012. EDUCATION PRINCIPLES IN A MODEL OF STRONG
SUSTAINABILITY. Problems of Education in the 21st Century 44:1, 10-19. [Crossref]
594. Luisito Bertinelli, Eric Strobl, Benteng Zou. 2012. Sustainable economic development and the
environment: Theory and evidence. Energy Economics 34:4, 1105-1114. [Crossref]
595. Matías Piaggio, Emilio Padilla. 2012. CO2 emissions and economic activity: Heterogeneity across
countries and non-stationary series. Energy Policy 46, 370-381. [Crossref]
596. Elizabeth A. Stanton. 2012. Modeling pessimism: Does climate Stabilization require a failure of
development?. Environmental Development 3, 65-76. [Crossref]
597. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2012. Does globalisation affect consumers' pro-environmental intentions?
A multilevel analysis across 25 countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 19:3, 229-237. [Crossref]
598. Désiré Avom, Gislain Stéphane Gandjon Fankem. 2012. Le développement durable constitue-t-il un
élément d'attractivité territoriale ? Application aux pays de l'Afrique Centrale. Marché et organisations
N° 16:2, 77-102. [Crossref]
599. Limin Du, Chu Wei, Shenghua Cai. 2012. Economic development and carbon dioxide emissions in
China: Provincial panel data analysis. China Economic Review 23:2, 371-384. [Crossref]
600. Jie He, Hua Wang. 2012. Economic structure, development policy and environmental quality: An
empirical analysis of environmental Kuznets curves with Chinese municipal data. Ecological Economics
76, 49-59. [Crossref]
601. Gabriele Spilker. 2012. Helpful Organizations: Membership in Inter-Governmental Organizations and
Environmental Quality in Developing Countries. British Journal of Political Science 42:2, 345-370.
[Crossref]
602. Markus Kitzmueller,, Jay Shimshack. 2012. Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility.
Journal of Economic Literature 50:1, 51-84. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
603. George E. Halkos, Nickolaos G. Tzeremes. 2012. Measuring German regions’ environmental
efficiency: a directional distance function approach. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 5:1, 7-16.
[Crossref]
604. Hossein Mirshojaeian Hosseini, Shinji Kaneko. 2012. Causality between pillars of sustainable
development: Global stylized facts or regional phenomena?. Ecological Indicators 14:1, 197-201.
[Crossref]
605. C. Palmer, S. Di Falco. 2012. Biodiversity, poverty, and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy
28:1, 48-68. [Crossref]
606. Elizabeth A. Stanton. 2012. The Tragedy of Maldistribution: Climate, Sustainability, and Equity.
Sustainability 4:3, 394-411. [Crossref]
607. Christoph Schmitz, Anne Biewald, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Alexander Popp, Jan Philipp Dietrich,
Benjamin Bodirsky, Michael Krause, Isabelle Weindl. 2012. Trading more food: Implications for land
use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food system. Global Environmental Change 22:1, 189-209.
[Crossref]
608. Peter Preisendörfer, Andreas Diekmann. Umweltprobleme 1198-1217. [Crossref]
609. Matthew A. Shapiro. Long-Run Protection: Determining Key Features of Growth and Sustainability
in Northeast Asia 259-278. [Crossref]
610. Olaf Weber, Marco Mansfeld, Eric Schirrmann. The Financial Performance of RI Funds After 2000
75-91. [Crossref]
611. Timothy J. Tyrrell, Robert J. Johnston. The Role of Tourism in Sustainable Communities 565-582.
[Crossref]
612. Risa Kumazawa, Michael S. Callaghan. 2012. The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon dioxide
emissions. Journal of Economics and Finance 36:1, 201-210. [Crossref]
613. Mariana I. Zilio. 2012. Curva de Kuznets ambiental: la validez de sus fundamentos en países en
desarrollo. Cuadernos de Economía 35:97, 43-54. [Crossref]
614. Rinku Roy Chowdhury, Emilio F. Moran. 2012. Turning the curve: A critical review of Kuznets
approaches. Applied Geography 32:1, 3-11. [Crossref]
615. Rachel S. Franklin, Matthias Ruth. 2012. Growing up and cleaning up: The environmental Kuznets
curve redux. Applied Geography 32:1, 29-39. [Crossref]
616. Robert Y. Shum. 2012. Effects of economic recession and local weather on climate change attitudes.
Climate Policy 12:1, 38-49. [Crossref]
617. Roberta de Santis. 2012. Trade, FDI, Growth and Biodiversity: An Empirical Analysis for the Main
OECD Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
618. Travis Roach. 2012. A State-Level Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the United States. SSRN
619. Wen-Shwo Fang, Stephen M. Miller, Chih-Chuan Yeh. 2012. The Effect of ESCOs on Energy Use.
620. Wen-Shwo Fang, Stephen M. Miller. 2012. The Effect of ESCOs on Carbon Dioxide Emissions.
621. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz. 2012. Trade and Environmental Quality in African Countries: Do Institutions
Matter?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
622. Mohamed M. Mostafa. Modeling the Ecological Footprint of Nations via Evolutionary Computation
and Machine Learning Models 2081-2100. [Crossref]
623. Jean-Michel Larivière, Jie He. 2012. L’impact de la taille des firmes industrielles sur la courbe de
Kuznets environnementale : le cas des émissions de SO2 en Chine. L'Actualité économique 88:1, 5-36.
[Crossref]
624. Mariana Zilio, Marina Recalde. 2011. GDP and environment pressure: The role of energy in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Energy Policy 39:12, 7941-7949. [Crossref]
625. Ghuncha Firdaus, Ateeque Ahmad. 2011. Impact analysis of urbanization on rural livelihood – an
empirical study of an urban centre of Delhi, India. International Journal of Urban Sciences 15:3,
147-160. [Crossref]
626. Laurent Baechler. 2011. Les stratégies de développement durable à la lumière de la crise de 2008.
L'Europe en Formation n° 361:3, 73-86. [Crossref]
627. Christopher Marcoux, Johannes Urpelainen. 2011. Special Interests, Regulatory Quality, and the
Pesticides Overload. Review of Policy Research 28:6, 585-612. [Crossref]
628. George E. Halkos, Nickolaos G. Tzeremes. 2011. Growth and environmental pollution: empirical
evidence from China. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies 4:3, 144-157. [Crossref]
629. Roger Fouquet. 2011. Long run trends in energy-related external costs. Ecological Economics 70:12,
2380-2389. [Crossref]
630. Soonae Park, Youngmi Lee. 2011. Regional model of EKC for air pollution: Evidence from the
Republic of Korea. Energy Policy 39:10, 5840-5849. [Crossref]
631. 2011. People, Projects, and Programs. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 4:5, 216-221. [Crossref]
632. Ing-Marie Gren, Monica Campos. 2011. Development and non-indigenous species at the global scale.
Regional Environmental Change 11:3, 593-601. [Crossref]
633. Tobias Menz, Jan Kühling. 2011. Population aging and environmental quality in OECD countries:
evidence from sulfur dioxide emissions data. Population and Environment 33:1, 55-79. [Crossref]
634. Victor Brajer, Robert W. Mead, Feng Xiao. 2011. Searching for an Environmental Kuznets Curve in
China's air pollution. China Economic Review 22:3, 383-397. [Crossref]
635. Junjie Zhang, Can Wang. 2011. Co-benefits and additionality of the clean development mechanism:
An empirical analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62:2, 140-154. [Crossref]
636. Jing You. 2011. China's energy consumption and sustainable development: Comparative evidence from
GDP and genuine savings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15:6, 2984-2989. [Crossref]
637. Hale W. Thurston. 2011. Sustainability and Environmental Economics: Some Critical Foci.
Sustainability: The Journal of Record 4:4, 188-192. [Crossref]
638. Marta Aloi, Frederic Tournemaine. 2011. Growth effects of environmental policy when pollution
affects health. Economic Modelling 28:4, 1683-1695. [Crossref]
639. Ashley Murray, Gayathri Devi Mekala, Xia Chen. 2011. Evolving policies and the roles of public and
private stakeholders in wastewater and faecal-sludge management in India, China and Ghana. Water
International 36:4, 491-504. [Crossref]
640. Berna Kirkulak, Bin Qiu, Wei Yin. 2011. The impact of FDI on air quality: evidence from China.
Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies 4:2, 81-98. [Crossref]
641. . Notes 245-304. [Crossref]
642. Stephane Hallegatte, Valentin Przyluski, Adrien Vogt-Schilb. 2011. Building world narratives for
climate change impact, adaptation and vulnerability analyses. Nature Climate Change 1:3, 151-155.
[Crossref]
643. Weihua Du. Interrelations between environmental pollution, economic growth and population
distribution in gradient economic zones in China 6064-6067. [Crossref]
644. Shonil A. Bhagwat, Nigel Dudley, Stuart R. Harrop. 2011. Religious following in biodiversity
hotspots: challenges and opportunities for conservation and development. Conservation Letters 4:3,
234-240. [Crossref]
645. ☆☆☆. 2011. A Political Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy, Redistributive Policy, and
Economic Growth. KDI Journal of Economic Policy 33:2, 145-175. [Crossref]
646. Li Wang. 2011. A nonparametric analysis on the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmetrics 22:3,
420-430. [Crossref]
647. Sjak Smulders, Lucas Bretschger, Hannes Egli. 2011. Economic Growth and the Diffusion of Clean
Technologies: Explaining Environmental Kuznets Curves. Environmental and Resource Economics 49:1,
79-99. [Crossref]
648. Zhu Liu, Yong Geng, Bing Xue. Notice of Retraction: The Relationship between Pollution Emission
and the Economy: An Eco-Efficiency Analysis in Industrial Waste Water Discharge in China 1-4.
[Crossref]
649. Katrina Mullan, Andreas Kontoleon, Tim Swanson, Shiqiu Zhang. 2011. When should households
be compensated for land-use restrictions? A decision-making framework for Chinese forest policy.
Land Use Policy 28:2, 402-412. [Crossref]
650. Gustavo Inácio de Moraes, Maurício Aguiar Serra. 2011. O modelo IS-LM-EE para economias abertas
e distinções dos efeitos para as economias nacionais. Economia e Sociedade 20:1, 53-78. [Crossref]
651. Yu-wai Li, Bo Miao, Graeme Lang. 2011. The Local Environmental State in China: A Study of
County-Level Cities in Suzhou. The China Quarterly 205, 115-132. [Crossref]
652. R. MacDermott, A. Basuchoudhary, J. Bang. Trade, Trade Agreements and the Environment 394-399.
[Crossref]
653. Hui Zhang, Yi Yu, Hao Hu. 2011. Economy Growth and Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution: An
Empirical Analysis: Based on Provincial Paneldata (1990-2007). Energy Procedia 5, 545-549. [Crossref]
654. Shubhayu Saha, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, Erin O. Sills, Ashok K. Singha. 2011. Under-mining
health: Environmental justice and mining in India. Health & Place 17:1, 140-148. [Crossref]
655. Michaël Aklin. 2011. Trade, Development & the Environment: The Diffusion of Pollution. SSRN
656. Chris Marcoux, Johannes Urpelainen. 2011. Profitable Participation: Technology Innovation as an
Influence on the Ratification of Regulatory Treaties. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
657. Yi Jiang, Tun Lin, Juzhong Zhuang. 2011. Environmental Kuznets Curves in the People’s Republic of
China: Turning Points and Regional Differences. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
658. Jean-Thomas Bernard, Michael Gavin, Lynda Khalaf, Marcel C. Voia. 2011. The Environmental
Kuznets Curve: Tipping Points, Uncertainty and Weak Identification. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
659. David Popp. 2011. International Technology Transfer, Climate Change, and the Clean Development
Mechanism. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 5:1, 131-152. [Crossref]
660. Daniel B. Müller, Tao Wang, Benjamin Duval. 2011. Patterns of Iron Use in Societal Evolution.
Environmental Science & Technology 45:1, 182-188. [Crossref]
661. Steven P. Cassou, Arantza Gorostiaga, María José Gutiérrez, Stephen F. Hamilton. 2010. Second-
best tax policy and natural resource management in growing economies. International Tax and Public
Finance 17:6, 607-626. [Crossref]
662. Johannes Urpelainen. 2010. Regulation under Economic Globalization1. International Studies
Quarterly 54:4, 1099-1121. [Crossref]
663. Todd L. Matthews. 2010. THE ENDURING CONFLICT OF “JOBS VERSUS THE
ENVIRONMENT”: LOCAL POLLUTION HAVENS AS AN INTEGRATIVE EMPIRICAL
MEASURE OF ECONOMY VERSUS ENVIRONMENT. Sociological Spectrum 31:1, 59-85.
[Crossref]
664. John Quiggin. 2010. Agriculture and global climate stabilization: a public good analysis. Agricultural
Economics 41, 121-132. [Crossref]
665. Alexandra Leitão. 2010. Corruption and the environmental Kuznets Curve: Empirical evidence for
sulfur. Ecological Economics 69:11, 2191-2201. [Crossref]
666. Giovanni Immordino, Marco Pagano. 2010. Legal Standards, Enforcement, and Corruption. Journal
of the European Economic Association 8:5, 1104-1132. [Crossref]
667. Dietrich Earnhart, Lubomir Lizal. 2010. Effect of Corporate Economic Performance on Firm-Level
Environmental Performance in a Transition Economy. Environmental and Resource Economics 46:3,
303-329. [Crossref]
668. Mohamed M. Mostafa. 2010. A Bayesian approach to analyzing the ecological footprint of 140 nations.
Ecological Indicators 10:4, 808-817. [Crossref]
669. Surender Kumar, Shunsuke Managi. 2010. Environment and productivities in developed and
developing countries: The case of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Journal of Environmental
Management 91:7, 1580-1592. [Crossref]
670. Folorunso Sunday Ayadi. 2010. An Empirical Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve in Nigeria.
International Journal of Green Computing 1:2, 31-39. [Crossref]
671. Ioan Ciumasu, Naela Costica. Impacts of Air Pollution on the Ecosystem and Human Health 447-492.
[Crossref]
672. HIROYUKI TAGUCHI, HARUTAKA MUROFUSHI. 2010. Evidence on the interjurisdictional
competition for polluted industries within China. Environment and Development Economics 15:3,
363-378. [Crossref]
673. Kyla Tienhaara. 2010. A tale of two crises: what the global financial crisis means for the global
environmental crisis. Environmental Policy and Governance 20:3, 197-208. [Crossref]
674. Tetsuya Tsurumi, Shunsuke Managi. 2010. Decomposition of the environmental Kuznets curve:
scale, technique, and composition effects. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 11:1-4, 19-36.
[Crossref]
675. Aaron Kearsley, Mary Riddel. 2010. A further inquiry into the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics 69:4, 905-919. [Crossref]
676. Yannick Le Pen, Benoît Sévi. 2010. On the non-convergence of energy intensities: Evidence from a
pair-wise econometric approach. Ecological Economics 69:3, 641-650. [Crossref]
677. Artur Tamazian, B. Bhaskara Rao. 2010. Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter
for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Economics 32:1, 137-145.
[Crossref]
678. Siqi Zheng, Matthew E. Kahn, Hongyu Liu. 2010. Towards a system of open cities in China: Home
prices, FDI flows and air quality in 35 major cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics 40:1, 1-10.
[Crossref]
679. Zhong wu Li, Qi Zhang, Yong Fang, Xiao cong Yang, Qing shui Yuan. 2010. Examining social-
economic factors in spatial and temporal change of water quality in red soil hilly region of South
China: a case study in Hunan Province. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 42:1/2/3,
184. [Crossref]
680. Junjie Zhang, Can Wang. 2010. Co-Benefits and Additionality of the Clean Development Mechanism:
An Empirical Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
681. Jennifer Alix-Garcia, Craig McIntosh, Jarrod R. Welch, Katharine R. E. Sims. 2010. The Ecological
Footprint of Poverty Alleviation: Evidence from Mexico's Oportunidades Program. SSRN Electronic
682. Bin Dong, Benno Torgler. 2010. The Consequences of Corruption: Evidences from China. SSRN
683. Olaf Weber, Marco Mansfeld, Eric Schirrmann. 2010. The Financial Performance of SRI Funds
Between 2002 and 2009. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
684. Thomas Bernauer, Lena M. Schaffer. 2010. Climate Change Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
685. Olaf Weber. 2010. Sustainability and Environmental Risk Management in Canadian Banks and
Financial Service Institutions – A Global Comparative Study. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
686. David C. Popp. 2010. International Technology Transfer for Climate Policy. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
687. Richard T. Carson. 2010. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Seeking Empirical Regularity and
Theoretical Structure. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4:1, 3-23. [Crossref]
688. JOHANNA ETNER, MEGLENA JELEVA, PIERRE-ANDRE JOUVET. 2009. PESSIMISM
OR OPTIMISM: A JUSTIFICATION TO VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY*. Australian Economic Papers 48:4, 308-319. [Crossref]
689. Peter M. Madsen. 2009. Does Corporate Investment Drive a “Race to the Bottom” in Environmental
Protection? A Reexamination of the Effect of Environmental Regulation on Investment. Academy of
Management Journal 52:6, 1297-1318. [Crossref]
690. Z. O. Ojekunle, Z. Lin, T. Xin, G. Harrer, A. O. Martins, H. Bangura. 2009. Global Climate Change:
The Empirical Study of Sensitivity Model in China's Sustainable Development. Energy Sources, Part
A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 31:19, 1777-1789. [Crossref]
691. Tanya O’Garra. 2009. Bequest Values for Marine Resources: How Important for Indigenous
Communities in Less-Developed Economies?. Environmental and Resource Economics 44:2, 179-202.
[Crossref]
692. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Jonathan E. M. Baillie, William J. Sutherland, Paul R. Armsworth, Neville Ash,
John Beddington, Tim M. Blackburn, Ben Collen, Barry Gardiner, Kevin J. Gaston, H. Charles J.
Godfray, Rhys E. Green, Paul H. Harvey, Brett House, Sandra Knapp, Noëlle F. Kümpel, David W.
Macdonald, Georgina M. Mace, James Mallet, Adam Matthews, Robert M. May, Owen Petchey, Andy
Purvis, Dilys Roe, Kamran Safi, Kerry Turner, Matt Walpole, Robert Watson, Kate E. Jones. 2009.
Biodiversity Conservation and the Millennium Development Goals. Science 325:5947, 1502-1503.
[Crossref]
693. Robert Y. Shum. 2009. Can attitudes predict outcomes? Public opinion, democratic institutions and
environmental policy. Environmental Policy and Governance 19:5, 281-295. [Crossref]
694. Yoshiaki Tsuzuki. 2009. Comparison of pollutant discharge per capita (PDC) and its relationships with
economic development: An indicator for ambient water quality improvement as well as the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) sanitation indicator. Ecological Indicators 9:5, 971-981. [Crossref]
695. Robert Lempert, Jürgen Scheffran, Detlef F. Sprinz. 2009. Methods for Long-Term Environmental
Policy Challenges. Global Environmental Politics 9:3, 106-133. [Crossref]
696. Fabien Prieur. 2009. The environmental Kuznets curve in a world of irreversibility. Economic Theory
40:1, 57-90. [Crossref]
697. Julia K. Steinberger, Damien Friot, Olivier Jolliet, Suren Erkman. 2009. A spatially explicit life cycle
inventory of the global textile chain. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14:5, 443-455.
[Crossref]
698. Mohamed M. Mostafa, Rajan Nataraajan. 2009. A neuro-computational intelligence analysis of the
ecological footprint of nations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 53:9, 3516-3531. [Crossref]
699. Serkan Gürlük. 2009. Economic growth, industrial pollution and human development in the
Mediterranean Region. Ecological Economics 68:8-9, 2327-2335. [Crossref]
700. Frank Boons, Marcus Wagner. 2009. Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological
performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation. Ecological Economics 68:7,
1908-1914. [Crossref]
701. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Anna Montini, Roberto Zoboli. 2009. Municipal waste generation and the
EKC hypothesis new evidence exploiting province-based panel data. Applied Economics Letters 16:7,
719-725. [Crossref]
702. Derek Vollmer. 2009. Urban waterfront rehabilitation: can it contribute to environmental
improvements in the developing world?. Environmental Research Letters 4:2, 024003. [Crossref]
703. Sandra O. Archibald, Zbigniew Bochniarz, Masahiko Gemma, Tanja Srebotnjak. 2009. Transition and
sustainability: empirical analysis of environmental Kuznets curve for water pollution in 25 countries
in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Environmental Policy
and Governance 19:2, 73-98. [Crossref]
704. Elif Akbostancı, Serap Türüt-Aşık, G. İpek Tunç. 2009. The relationship between income and
environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy Policy 37:3, 861-867.
[Crossref]
705. Geetilaxmi Mohapatra, A.K. Giri. 2009. Economic development and environmental quality: an
econometric study in India. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 20:2,
175-191. [Crossref]
706. Krishna P. Paudel, Mark J. Schafer. 2009. The Environmental Kuznets Curve Under a New Framework:
The Role of Social Capital in Water Pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics 42:2, 265-278.
[Crossref]
707. Jorge Rivera, Jennifer Oetzel, Peter deLeon, Mark Starik. 2009. Business responses to environmental
and social protection policies: toward a framework for analysis. Policy Sciences 42:1, 3-32. [Crossref]
708. Jill L. Caviglia-Harris, Dustin Chambers, James R. Kahn. 2009. Taking the “U” out of Kuznets.
Ecological Economics 68:4, 1149-1159. [Crossref]
709. Frans Berkhout, David Angel, Anna J. Wieczorek. 2009. Asian development pathways and sustainable
socio-technical regimes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76:2, 218-228. [Crossref]
710. Jen Baggs. 2009. International Trade in Hazardous Waste. Review of International Economics 17:1,
1-16. [Crossref]
711. Gang Liu, Terje Skjerpen, Kjetil Telle. 2009. Unit roots, polynomial transformations and the
environmental Kuznets curve. Applied Economics Letters 16:3, 285-288. [Crossref]
712. Sangwon Suh. Developing the Sectoral Environmental Database for Input-Output Analysis:
Comprehensive Environmental Data Archive of the U.S 689-712. [Crossref]
713. Yannick Le Pen, Benoît Sévi. 2009. On the Non-Convergence of Energy Intensities: Evidence from a
Pair-Wise Econometric Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
714. Nektarios Aslanidis. 2009. Environmental Kuznets Curves for Carbon Emissions: A Critical Survey.
715. John P. Hoehn, Kwami Adanu. 2008. Do growth, investment, and trade encourage water use or water
conservation?. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 1:2-3, 127-146. [Crossref]
716. JEFFREY BEGUN, THEO S. EICHER. 2008. In search of an environmental Kuznets curve in
sulphur dioxide concentrations: a Bayesian model averaging approach. Environment and Development
Economics 13:06, 795. [Crossref]
717. LUCAS BRETSCHGER, KAREN PITTEL. 2008. From time zero to infinity: transitional and long-
run dynamics in capital–resource economies. Environment and Development Economics 13:06, 673.
[Crossref]
718. René W. Aubourg, David H. Good, Kerry Krutilla. 2008. Debt, democratization, and development
in Latin America: How policy can affect global warming. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
27:1, 7-19. [Crossref]
719. Bríd Gleeson Hanna. 2008. An empirical study of income growth and manufacturing industry
pollution in New England, 1980–1990. Ecological Economics 67:1, 75-82. [Crossref]
720. JON P. REZEK, KEVIN ROGERS. 2008. Decomposing the CO2-income tradeoff: an output distance
function approach. Environment and Development Economics 13:04. . [Crossref]
721. Noh-Sun Kwark, ☆☆☆. 2008. Determinants of Income Distribution☆Effects of Free Trade Agreement
and Kuznets Curve. KUKJE KYUNGJE YONGU 14:2, 77-100. [Crossref]
722. Victor Brajer, Robert W. Mead, Feng Xiao. 2008. Health benefits of tunneling through the Chinese
environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). Ecological Economics 66:4, 674-686. [Crossref]
723. Luisito Bertinelli, Eric Strobl, Benteng Zou. 2008. Economic development and environmental quality:
A reassessment in light of nature's self-regeneration capacity. Ecological Economics 66:2-3, 371-378.
[Crossref]
724. Maximilian Auffhammer, Richard T. Carson. 2008. Forecasting the path of China's CO2 emissions
using province-level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55:3, 229-247.
[Crossref]
725. Derek K. Kellenberg, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak. 2008. Does rising income increase or decrease damage
risk from natural disasters?. Journal of Urban Economics 63:3, 788-802. [Crossref]
726. Sherry Bartz, David L. Kelly. 2008. Economic growth and the environment: Theory and facts. Resource
and Energy Economics 30:2, 115-149. [Crossref]
727. Stephen Morse. 2008. On the use of headline indices to link environmental quality and income at the
level of the nation state. Applied Geography 28:2, 77-95. [Crossref]
728. Marco Bagliani, Giangiacomo Bravo, Silvana Dalmazzone. 2008. A consumption-based approach to
environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics 65:3,
650-661. [Crossref]
729. Olaf Weber, Marcus Fenchel, Roland W. Scholz. 2008. Empirical analysis of the integration of
environmental risks into the credit risk management process of European banks. Business Strategy and
the Environment 17:3, 149-159. [Crossref]
730. Olaf Weber, Roland W. Scholz, Georg Michalik. 2008. Incorporating sustainability criteria into credit
risk management. Business Strategy and the Environment 21, n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
731. Remigijus Ciegis, Dalia Streimikiene, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas. 2008. The use of the
environmental Kuznets curve: environmental and economic implications. International Journal of
Environment and Pollution 33:2/3, 313. [Crossref]
732. Jayesh D'Souza. 2008. Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability: A Study of Peru's
Camisea Natural Gas Project. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
733. Geraint Johnes. 2008. Trade in the Greenhouse: Efficient Policy in a Global Model. SSRN Electronic
734. Luis Guillermo Pérez Puerta, Juan Carlos Muñoz Mora, Catalina Granda Carvajal. 2008. The
Environmental Kuznets Curve for Water Quality: An Analysis of Its Appropriateness Using Unit Root
and Cointegration Tests. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
735. Shingo OHKUMA, Hideo NODA. 2008. The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Convergence of
Sulfur Emissions in OECD Countries : Analysis Based on the Green Solow Model. Studies in Regional
Science 38:1, 177-190. [Crossref]
736. Gilles Grolleau, Jeremy Lamri, Naoufel Mzoughi. 2008. Déterminants de la diffusion internationale
de la norme ISO 14001. Économie & prévision n° 185:4, 123. [Crossref]
737. Susmita Dasgupta, Kirk Hamilton, Stefano Pagiola, David Wheeler. 2008. Environmental Economics
at the World Bank. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2:1, 4-25. [Crossref]
738. Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné. 2007. Le développement durable. Gestion Vol. 32:4, 46-53. [Crossref]
739. Alan Day Haight. 2007. Diagram for a small planet: The Production and Ecosystem Possibilities
Curve. Ecological Economics 64:1, 224-232. [Crossref]
740. Alain Karsenty, Romain Pirard. 2007. Changement climatique : faut-il récompenser la « déforestation
évitée » ?. Natures Sciences Sociétés 15:4, 357-369. [Crossref]
741. Shih-Ying Wu, Po-Young Chu, Tzu-Yar Liu. 2007. DETERMINANTS OF A FIRM'S ISO
14001 CERTIFICATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TAIWAN. Pacific Economic Review 12:4,
467-487. [Crossref]
742. MARZIO GALEOTTI. 2007. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE QUALITY OF THE
ENVIRONMENT: TAKING STOCK. Environment, Development and Sustainability 9:4, 427-454.
[Crossref]
743. Dongyong Zhang, Uma Kambhampati, Stephen Morse. 2007. Economic growth and the environment
in Transitional China—an old topic with new perspectives. Journal of International Development 19:6,
765-779. [Crossref]
744. Cornelia Ohl, Kinga Krauze, Clemens Grünbühel. 2007. Towards an understanding of long-term
ecosystem dynamics by merging socio-economic and environmental research. Ecological Economics
63:2-3, 383-391. [Crossref]
745. Mary E. Davis. 2007. US Environmental Politics: A Study of State Toxic Metal Water Quality
Standards. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9:2, 143-163. [Crossref]
746. Eliezer Martins Diniz. 2007. Lessons from the Kyoto Protocol. Ambiente & Sociedade 10:1, 27-38.
[Crossref]
747. Xiaozi Liu, Gerhard K. Heilig, Junmiao Chen, Mikko Heino. 2007. Interactions between economic
growth and environmental quality in Shenzhen, China's first special economic zone. Ecological
Economics 62:3-4, 559-570. [Crossref]
748. Matthew A. Cole. 2007. Corruption, income and the environment: An empirical analysis. Ecological
Economics 62:3-4, 637-647. [Crossref]
749. David I. Stern. 2007. The Effect of NAFTA on Energy and Environmental Efficiency in Mexico.
Policy Studies Journal 35:2, 291-322. [Crossref]
750. Roberto Ezcurra. 2007. Is there cross-country convergence in carbon dioxide emissions?. Energy Policy
35:2, 1363-1372. [Crossref]
751. Hannes Egli, Thomas M. Steger. 2007. A Dynamic Model of the Environmental Kuznets Curve:
Turning Point and Public Policy. Environmental and Resource Economics 36:1, 15-34. [Crossref]
752. Thomas M. Steger, Hannes Egli. A Dynamic Model of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning
Point and Public Policy 17-34. [Crossref]
753. Marek Radzikowski, Krzysztof I. Rybinski. 2007. Achieving Sustainable Growth: Will New Europe
Fly or Crawl in the 21st Century Global Knowledge Economy?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
754. Yael Meroz, Andrea Morone, Piergiuseppe Morone. 2007. Eliciting Environmental Preferences of
Ghanaians: An Experimental Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
755. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Roberto Zoboli. 2007. Environmental Efficiency, Emission Trends and Labour
Productivity: Trade-Off or Joint Dynamics? Empirical Evidence Using NAMEA Panel Data. SSRN
756. Jin-Li Hu, Shih-Chuan Wang, Fang-Yu Yeh. 2006. Total-factor water efficiency of regions in China.
Resources Policy 31:4, 217-230. [Crossref]
757. Sabrina Auci, Leonardo Becchetti. 2006. The instability of the adjusted and unadjusted environmental
Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics 60:1, 282-298. [Crossref]
758. Yufu Zhang, Satoshi Tachibana, Shin Nagata. 2006. Impact of socio-economic factors on the changes
in forest areas in China. Forest Policy and Economics 9:1, 63-76. [Crossref]
759. Anil Markandya, Alexander Golub, Suzette Pedroso-Galinato. 2006. Empirical Analysis of National
Income and SO2 Emissions in Selected European Countries. Environmental and Resource Economics
35:3, 221-257. [Crossref]
760. Susmita Dasgupta, Kirk Hamilton, Kiran D. Pandey, David Wheeler. 2006. Environment During
growth: Accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Development 34:9, 1597-1611. [Crossref]
761. Théophile Azomahou, François Laisney, Phu Nguyen Van. 2006. Economic development and CO2
emissions: A nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics 90:6-7, 1347-1363. [Crossref]
762. Ann L. Owen, Julio Videras. 2006. Civic cooperation, pro-environment attitudes, and behavioral
intentions. Ecological Economics 58:4, 814-829. [Crossref]
763. Shunsuke Managi. 2006. Are there increasing returns to pollution abatement? Empirical analytics of
the Environmental Kuznets Curve in pesticides. Ecological Economics 58:3, 617-636. [Crossref]
764. J. Barkley Rosser, Marina V. Rosser. 2006. Institutional Evolution of Environmental Management
under Global Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Issues 40:2, 421-429. [Crossref]
765. David I. Stern. 2006. Reversal of the trend in global anthropogenic sulfur emissions. Global
Environmental Change 16:2, 207-220. [Crossref]
766. Nathaniel T. Aden, Jonathan E. Sinton. 2006. Environmental implications of energy policy in china.
767. David Maddison. 2006. Environmental Kuznets curves: A spatial econometric approach. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 51:2, 218-230. [Crossref]
768. Peter Gordon. 2006. Sustainability planning: first, do no harm. Property Management 24:2, 132-143.
[Crossref]
769. David Bishai, Asma Quresh, Prashant James, Abdul Ghaffar. 2006. National road casualties and
economic development. Health Economics 15:1, 65-81. [Crossref]
770. F.G. Hilton. 2006. Poverty and pollution abatement: Evidence from lead phase-out. Ecological
771. Marzio Galeotti, Matteo Manera, Alessandro Lanza. 2006. On the Robustness of Robustness Checks
of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
772. Luisito Bertinelli, Eric Strobl, Benteng Zou. 2006. Polluting Technologies and Sustainable Economic
Development. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
773. Luisito Bertinelli, Eric Strobl, Benteng Zou. 2006. Sustainable Economic Development and the
Environment: Theory and Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
774. Matthew E. Kahn. 2006. Environmentalists Offer a Big Push for New Green Products: Evidence from
Hybrid Vehicle Registrations. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
775. Valeria Costantini, Chiara Martini. 2006. A Modified Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sustainable
Development Assessment Using Panel Data. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
776. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Anna Montini, Roberto Zoboli. 2006. Municipal Waste Production, Economic
Drivers, and 'New' Waste Policies: EKC Evidence from Italian Regional and Provincial Panel Data.
777. Jessie P. H. Poon, Irene Casas, Canfei He. 2006. The Impact of Energy, Transport, and Trade on Air
Pollution in China. Eurasian Geography and Economics 47:5, 568-584. [Crossref]
778. Sangwon Suh. 2005. Developing a sectoral environmental database for input–output analysis: the
comprehensive environmental data archive of the US. Economic Systems Research 17:4, 449-469.
[Crossref]
779. Massimiliano Mazzanti, Roberto Zoboli. 2005. Delinking and environmental Kuznets curves for waste
indicators in Europe. Environmental Sciences 2:4, 409-425. [Crossref]
780. Edward B. Barbier. Natural Resources and Economic Development 80, . [Crossref]
781. Richard Hartman, O-Sung Kwon. 2005. Sustainable growth and the environmental Kuznets curve.
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 29:10, 1701-1736. [Crossref]
782. Luisito Bertinelli, Eric Strobl. 2005. The Environmental Kuznets Curve semi-parametrically revisited.
Economics Letters 88:3, 350-357. [Crossref]
783. MARY E. DAVIS. 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS IN THE US: A STUDY OF STATE
SULFUR DIOXIDE STANDARDS. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
07:03, 331-354. [Crossref]
784. Manu Sharma, Bryan G. Norton. 2005. A policy decision tool for integrated environmental assessment.
Environmental Science & Policy 8:4, 356-366. [Crossref]
785. Susmita Dasgupta, Uwe Deichmann, Craig Meisner, David Wheeler. 2005. Where is the Poverty–
Environment Nexus? Evidence from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. World Development 33:4,
617-638. [Crossref]
786. ANTON NAHMAN, GEOFF ANTROBUS. 2005. THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS
CURVE: A LITERATURE SURVEY. The South African Journal of Economics 73:1, 105-120.
[Crossref]
787. Michael Leifman, Mark Heil. 2005. Guest Editors’ Note. The Journal of Environment & Development
14:1, 7-26. [Crossref]
788. David I. Stern. 2005. Beyond the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Diffusion of Sulfur-Emissions-
Abating Technology. The Journal of Environment & Development 14:1, 101-124. [Crossref]
789. W. Pepper, A. Sankovski, J. Leggett. 2005. Probabilistic Modeling of Sulfur and Nitrogen Pollution
Controls and Their Relations With Income. The Journal of Environment & Development 14:1, 197-219.
[Crossref]
790. Neil Edwards, Hubert Greppin, Alain Haurie, Laurent Viguier. Linking Climate and Economic
Dynamics 1-34. [Crossref]
791. Anastasios Xepapadeas. Chapter 23 Economic growth and the environment 1219-1271. [Crossref]
792. David I. Stern. 2005. Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000. Chemosphere 58:2, 163-175.
[Crossref]
793. Surender Kumar, Madhu Khanna. 2005. Measurement of Environmental Efficiency and Productivity:
A Cross Country Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
794. Leonardo Becchetti, Sabrina Auci. 2005. The Stability of the Adjusted and Unadjusted Environmental
Kuznets Curve. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
795. Théophile Azomahou, Francois Laisney, Phu Nguyen Van. 2005. Economic Development and Co2
Emissions: A Nonparametric Panel Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
796. Jorge E. Rivera, Jennifer Oetzel, Peter De Leon, Mark Starik. 2005. Business Responses to
Environmental and Social Protection Policies: Towards a Framework for Analysis. SSRN Electronic
797. Edward B. Barbier. 2004. Explaining Agricultural Land Expansion and Deforestation in Developing
Countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86:5, 1347-1353. [Crossref]
798. R. Quentin Grafton, Stephen Knowles. 2004. Social Capital and National Environmental Performance:
A Cross-Sectional Analysis. The Journal of Environment & Development 13:4, 336-370. [Crossref]
799. Nilanjana Roy, G. Cornelis van Kooten. 2004. Another look at the income elasticity of non-point
source air pollutants: a semiparametric approach. Economics Letters 85:1, 17-22. [Crossref]
800. Soumyananda Dinda. 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics
49:4, 431-455. [Crossref]
801. David I Stern. 2004. The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development 32:8,
1419-1439. [Crossref]
802. Gilles Grolleau, Tarik Lakhal, Naoufel Mzoughi. 2004. Does Ethical Activism Lead to Firm
Relocation?1. Kyklos 57:3, 387-402. [Crossref]
803. Matthew E Kahn. 2004. Domestic pollution havens: evidence from cancer deaths in border counties.
Journal of Urban Economics 56:1, 51-69. [Crossref]
804. Klaus E Meyer. 2004. Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies. Journal of
International Business Studies 35:4, 259-276. [Crossref]
805. John Mutti, Harry Grubert. 2004. Empirical asymmetries in foreign direct investment and taxation.
Journal of International Economics 62:2, 337-358. [Crossref]
806. Brian R. Copeland, M. Scott Taylor. 2004. Trade, Growth, and the Environment. Journal of Economic
Literature 42:1, 7-71. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
807. David I. Stern. Economic Growth and Energy 35-51. [Crossref]
808. David I. Stern. Environmental Kuznets Curve 517-525. [Crossref]
809. Marzio Galeotti, Claudia Kemfert. 2004. Interactions Between Climate and Trade Policies: A Survey.
810. Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, Shreyasi Jha. 2004. Environmental Impact of India's Trade Liberalization.
811. David I. Stern. 2004. Diffusion of Emissions Abating Technology. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
812. Ann L. Owen, Julio Videras. 2004. Civic Cooperation, Pro-Environment Attitudes, and Individual
Behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
813. Luisito Bertinelli, Eric Strobl. 2004. The Environmental Kuznets Curve Semi-Parametrically Revisited.
814. Roger Perman, David I. Stern. 2003. Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the
Environmental Kuznets Curve does not exist. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
47:3, 325-347. [Crossref]
815. Matthew E. Kahn. 2003. The geography of US pollution intensive trade: evidence from 1958 to 1994.
Regional Science and Urban Economics 33:4, 383-400. [Crossref]
816. Matthew E. Kahn. 2003. Domestic Pollution Havens: Evidence from Cancer Deaths in Border
Counties. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
817. Marzio Galeotti. 2003. Economic Development and Environmental Protection. SSRN Electronic
818. William F. Hyde. Limitations of Sustainable Forest Management: An Economics Perspective 193-210.
[Crossref]
819. Douglas Southgate, Boris Bravo-Ureta, Morris Whitaker. Economic Progress in the Countryside,
Forests, and Public Policy 253-265. [Crossref]
820. David M. Bishai, Yung-Ting Kung. Macroeconomics 169-191. [Crossref]
821. Brent Swallow, Ruth Meinzen-Dick. Payment for Environmental Services: Interactions with Property
Rights and Collective Action 243-265. [Crossref]
822. Kanwalroop Kathy Dhanda, Ronald Paul Hill. Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A
Long-Term View 297-317. [Crossref]
823. Folorunso Sunday Ayadi. An Empirical Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve in Nigeria
302-310. [Crossref]
824. Mohamed M. Mostafa. Modeling the Ecological Footprint of Nations via Evolutionary Computation
and Machine Learning Models 18-37. [Crossref]

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 1—Winter 2002—Pages 147–168

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 1—Winter 2002—Pages 147–168

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 1—Winter 2002—Pages 147–168

Confronting the Environmental

Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante,

T he environmental Kuznets curve posits an inverted-U relationship be-

Theory and Measurement of the Relationship between Economic

increasing rate. John and Pecchenino (1994), John, Pecchenio, Schimmelpfennig

How the Environmental Kuznets Curve Can Become Lower and

The Primary Role of Environmental Regulation

Source: Dasgupta, Mody, Roy and Wheeler (2001).

Source: World Bank (1999).

overwhelmed by the rise in overall pollution as a result of rising output (Beghin,

Pervasive Informal Regulation

Pressure from Market Agents

owned firms. For example, a careful audit of Indonesian factories undertaken in

Better Methods of Environmental Regulation

Globalization and the Risk of a Race to the Bottom

Notes: SPM is suspended particulate matter. FDI is foreign direct investment.

Notes: SPM is suspended particulate matter. FDI is foreign direct investment.

of fine particulate matter (PM-10) or suspended particulate matter (SPM). Further

Source: Wheeler (2001).

Are Other Pollutants Rising? The Case of Toxic Chemicals

Building Regulatory Capability

We believe that the international community can play a valuable role in

You might also like