Economic Growth and Access to Safe Drinking Water/ Access to Sanitation
The access to safe drinking water and sanitation is the indicator to discuss the economic situation in the country. The correlation between the economic growth, population, and environmental impact is rather obvious.
The link between factors can be examined with references to the United Kingdom as the developed country and Rwanda as the developing country. This report uses data provided by the World Bank Database and Eurostat Database.
The unequal distribution of safe drinking water access depends on availability of water resources and on investment into the associated sector of the country’s economy. The population of the United Kingdom is 63.23 million (2012) (Eurostat 2013).
Referring to the data on rural population, 100% of people (2011) has the access to safe drinking water (The World Bank 2013). On the contrary, the population of Rwanda is only 11.46 million (2012), but 66% of rural population (81% of the whole population in 2011) has the access to safe drinking water (The World Bank 2013).
It is possible to state that 3.2 million of the Rwandan population has no access to safe drinking water. Lack of investment and poor governance cause the deficiency of safe water for millions of people in Rwanda, and this factor causes the decline in social aspects such as the people’s health status.
While evaluating the problem critically, it is possible to note that economies can suffer from the decline in access to water supplies.
Nevertheless, the level of the country’s economic development influences the population’s access to safe drinking water directly, and the improvement of the situation can contribute to the economic growth because of improving the sanitation, population’s health status, quality of life, and productivity.
From this point, the economic growth and access to safe drinking water are affected by the same socio-economic factors, and the improved governments’ policies can contribute to the access to safe drinking water as well as to the countries’ economic growth.
Economic Growth and the Environment: Does the Relationship Depend on the Stages of Development and the Particular Environmental Indicator?
The intense use of natural resources, the extreme development of industries associated with the significant accumulation of waste, and the increased numbers of different types of pollutants as environmental indicators influence the biosphere’s carrying capacity and cause changes in ecosystems as well as in the countries’ economies.
The conclusions about the correlation between the economic growth and changes in the environment are rather opposite. From this point, it is necessary to refer to the definite approach in order to analyse the aspects of the relationship.
In this case, it is relevant to choose the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and the IPAT identity to discuss the problem and to refer to the cases of the United Kingdom and Spain in order to conclude about the relations between the stages of development determined according to the EKC principles and such particular environmental indicators as air pollutants and deforestation.
Although the relevance of the EKC and the focus on the stages of development as the important factors to speak about the relationship between the economic growth and environment are highly debatable issues, it is necessary to state with references to the cases of the United Kingdom and Spain that the relationship between the economic growth and environment depends on the stages of development and environmental indicators such as air pollutants and deforestation significantly because developed economies contribute to the progress of the environment friendly industries.
The Aspects of the IPAT Identity and the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
The IPAT Identity is the specific equation which is used to discuss the correlation between the impact of people, economy, and technology on the environment. The elements of the equation include the impact which consists of population’s impact influenced by affluence and influenced by technology. Thus, the equation can be viewed as Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology (Perman et al. 2003).
For instance, referring to the role of air pollutants such as CO2 influencing the environment of the United Kingdom, it is necessary to state that the concrete environmental impact of the CO2 emissions results from the population influenced by the aspect of affluence where the income per capita is the significant indicator and influenced by the level of the technological development in the country in relation to the changes in the population’s income, economic growth, and the level of the CO2 emissions (Mitchell & Dorling 2003).
However, the IPAT identity can be used more efficiently to support the analysis of the relationship between the economic growth and environment when examined along with analysing the EKC.
Despite the fact that many researchers state that the further economic progress leads to the environmental decline, the other researchers are inclined to associate the economic growth with the positive changes in the environmental development with references to the stages of the economic development (Grossman & Krueger 1995).
Such correlation is known as the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) which can be discussed as the inverted-U relationship between the environmental pollution and between the economic growth which is determined according to such stages of development as the pre-industrial economy, industrial economy, and post-industrial economy (Grossman & Krueger 1995).
During the pre-industrial stage, the negative impact of the economic development on the environment begins to increase while oriented to the intensive industrial progress. The extreme negative effect on the environment is typical for the period when economy becomes industrial (Stern 2005).
According to Dasgupta, in the first stage of industrialisation, “pollution in the environmental 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” (Dasgupta et al. 2002, p. 147).
However, there is the turning point when industries become more technologically developed, and “the balance shifts as income rises. Leading industrial sectors become cleaner, people value the environment more highly, and regulatory institutions become more effective” (Dasgupta et al. 2002, p. 147).
In addition, Beckerman states that the only effective way to improve the environment is to contribute to the economic growth and to become richer (Beckerman 1992, p. 481). Thus, the increase in incomes leads information-based industries and to the improved production based on technologies which are less dangerous for the environment.
The tendency explained with the EKC is characteristic for many economies, including the economies of the United Kingdom and Spain.
From this point, referring to the data on the changes in CO2 and SO2 emissions during different periods of the economies’ development, it is possible to state that the progress of post-industrial economies of the United Kingdom and Spain influence positively only the level of SO2 emissions in the air when the level of CO2 is closely correlated with the trends in consumption and cannot be influenced by the progress in industries and economies directly (Alcantara & Roca 1995; Giovanis 2012).
As a result, referring to the cases of the United Kingdom and Spain, it is possible to note that the EKC serves to explain the role of the stages of development in the relations between the economic growth and environment partially, and it is important to pay attention not only to the general idea of the economic growth but also to many separate aspects such as the renewable technologies and aspects of consumption.
The Data Analysis on Air Pollutants and Deforestation in the United Kingdom and Spain
The data analysis on air pollutants and deforestation as the particular environmental indicators associated with the economies of the United Kingdom and Spain is necessary to conclude about the relationship of the economic growth and environment with references to the EKC.
Examining the role of the air pollutants in the relationship between the economic growth and environmental degradation, it is necessary to refer to the data presented in the World Bank Database. According to the fixed data, the level of the CO2 emissions in the air of the United Kingdom in 2005 was 9.0 metric tons per capita, and in 2010, the level was decreased to 7.9 metric tons per capita.
In the case of Spain, the level of the CO2 emissions in the air was 8.1 in 2005, and in 2010, this level was 5.9 metric tons per capita (The World Bank 2013). From this point, the significant decreases in the amount of the CO2 emissions in the air of two European countries are observed with references to the period in five years.
As a result, it is possible to speak about the role of the EKC for analysing the data and providing the supported conclusions. In 2008-2010, the United Kingdom and Spain paid much attention to the development of their economies in order to gain more profits from improving the post-industrial economies.
This processes caused the positive changes in the environment because of investing more into innovative technologies oriented to cease the air pollution. That is why, the direct interdependence between the economic growth and the environment is observed.
Referring to the role of deforestation in affecting the relationship, it is necessary to state that in 2009, the percent of forests in relation to the land territories in the United Kingdom was 11.9, and in 2011, this number did not change. Focusing on the case of Spain, it is necessary to note that the percent of forests in 2009 was 36.1, and in 2011, this number increased to 36.8 (The World Bank 2013).
These data also support the idea that the intensive economic growth can contribute positively to the environmental situation because relying on the developed economies, governments receive the opportunity to improve the environment.
Thus, having analysed the factual and numerical data on the aspects of air pollutants and deforestation for the cases of the United Kingdom and Spain, it is necessary to state that the relationship between the economic growth and environment is direct and positive, as it is examined with references to the EKC principles.
The Analysis of Findings of Empirical Studies on Air Pollutants
To conclude about the role of the particular environmental indicator to influence the relationship between the economic growth and environment, it is necessary to examine the findings of empirical studies on changes in the levels of air pollutants in the United Kingdom and Spain and to compare them with the data on the factor of deforestation.
According to Giovanis, the changes in the level of air pollutants in the air of the United Kingdom can be examined with references to low income households and middle income households, thus, low income households influence the air pollution negatively when middle income households can contribute to the positive changes in the situation (Giovanis 2012).
However, analysing the effectiveness of the EKC, the author states that “there might be a cubic relationship, rather a linear or quadratic” (Giovanis 2012, p. 402). From this point, the relationship between the changes in the economies and air pollution is not obvious.
Mitchell and Dorling state that changes in the levels of such air pollutants as SO2 and CO2 can be examined with references to the effectiveness of the abatement technology used in the industries in the United Kingdom. The use of the innovative abatement technologies leads to the significant decrease in the SO2 and CO2 emissions (Mitchell & Dorling 2003).
From this point, the relationship between the economic growth and environment is observed with references to the case of the United Kingdom. Following the findings by Webber and Allen, it is possible to state that air pollutants influence the environment negatively, but this impact can be decreased with references to increased income levels which contribute to decreasing the negative emissions in 68% (Webber & Allen 2010).
However, such an economic factor as the increase in consumption can decrease the positive effect of the general economic growth because of influencing the level of air pollutants indirectly. That is why, the focus on the environment friendly consumption can also contribute to reducing the level of air pollutants in the United Kingdom in 39% (Mitchell & Dorling 2003; Perman et al. 2003).
Referring to the case of Spain, it is important to note that during the period of 1990-1994, CO2 emissions increased, and SO2 emissions decreased as a result of the economy’s progress. That is why, the EKC principle cannot be supported completely (Alcantara & Roca 1995).
Comparing the results on the levels of air pollution in the United Kingdom and Spain with the data on such an environmental indicator as deforestation, it is important to note that forestation does not depend on the economic growth directly because it is more influenced by the other factors (Webber & Allen 2010, p. 204).
The obvious correlation between the levels of the economic growth and deforestation cannot be determined with the help of the EKC.
Conclusion
Although the credibility of the EKC principle is the controversial question, and it is not supported with references to many empirical studies while referring to the examination of the air pollutants and deforestation aspects, there are also many data to support the relevance of the approach because many researchers provide findings to state that the relationship between the stages of the economic development and environmental degradation exists.
From this point, the relationship between the economic growth and environment depends on the stages of the economic development and such environmental indicators as the air pollutants and deforestation directly, but this principle does not work in all the cases because of the role of such multiple factors as the trends in consumption and improving industrial technologies.
Nevertheless, referring to the analysis of the data on air pollutants and deforestation in the United Kingdom and Spain for 2010-2011 years, it is important to state that in many cases, the relationship depends on the idea of the EKC.
Reference List
Alcantara, V & Roca, J 1995, ‘Energy and CO2 emissions in Spain’, Energy Economics, vol. 17. no. 1, pp. 221-230.
Beckerman, W 1992, ‘Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment?’ World Development, vol. 20. no. 4, pp. 481-496.
Dasgupta, S, Laplante, B, Wang, H, & Wheeler, D 2002, ‘Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 16. no. 1, pp. 147-168.
Eurostat 2013. Web.
Giovanis, E 2012, ‘Environmental Kuznets curve and air pollution in City of London: evidence from new panel smoothing transition regressions’, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 79. no. 3, pp. 393-404.
Grossman, G & Krueger, A 1995, ‘Economic growth and the environment’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110. no. 2, pp. 353-377.
Mitchell, G & Dorling, D 2003, ‘An environmental justice analysis of British air quality’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 35. no. 1, pp. 909-929.
Perman, R, Ma, Y, Common, M, Maddison, D, & Mcgilvray, J 2003, Natural resource and environmental economics, Pearson Education, USA.
Stern, D 2005, ‘Beyond the environmental Kuznets curve: Diffusion of sulfur-emissions-abating technology’, Journal of Environment and Development, vol.14. no. 1, pp. 101-124.
The World Bank: Economic/Social indicators (WDI) 2013. Web.
Webber, D & Allen, D 2010, ‘Environmental Kuznets curves: Mess or meaning’, IJSDWE, vol.17. no. 3, pp. 198-207.