Search results

The purpose of this examine the impact of income inequality and shadow economy on environmental degradation given the growing income inequality, shadow economy and ecological degradation in developing countries. Thus, this study is motivated to offer empirical insight into how income inequality and shadow economy influence the environment in African countries.

Data from 29 countries in Africa between 2000 and 2017 were used, while the novel method of moments quantile regression of Machado and Silva (2019) and Dumitrescu and Hurlin (D-H) (2012) granger causality is used as the estimation techniques.

The results established the presence of cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity in the panel, while Westerlund panel cointegration confirmed the long-run cointegration among the variables. The results from the quantile regression suggest that income inequality increases environmental degradation from the 5th to the 30th quantiles, while from the 70th quantiles, income inequality reduces ecological degradation. The shadow economy negatively influences environmental degradation across the quantiles, strengthening environmental quality. Per capita income (economic growth) and financial development positively impact environmental degradation throughout the quantiles. However, urbanization reduces environmental degradation from 60th to 95th quantiles. The D-H causality established a two-way relationship between income inequality and environmental degradation, while one-way from shadow economy, per capita income and urbanization to environmental degradation were established.

This study provides fresh insights into the nexus between shadow economy and environmental quality in the presence of higher levels of income inequality for the case of African region. The study applies quantile analysis via moment proposed by Machado and Silva (2019). This technique shows that the impact of income inequality and shadow economy on environmental degradation is heterogeneous across the quantiles of ecological footprints in Africa.

This study aims to test whether over-investment is associated with environmental, social and governance (ESG) variation (i.e. inequality) across its dimensions, which, if so, would imply the prioritization of the interests of some stakeholders over those of others.

Drawing on a global sample of 29,428 observations across nine sectors and 41 countries between 2003 and 2019, the authors executed a country-industry-year fixed-effects regression analysis. In the robustness tests, this study also used the entropy balancing and propensity score matching approaches.

The authors found that while firm over-investment increases social pillar inequality, it reduces environmental pillar inequality. Further analysis revealed that the over-investment strategy decreases (increases) ESG inequality in low (high) environmental and social performers. This outcome could be of relevance to internal governance mechanisms and policymaking as ESG inequality might raise legitimacy concerns and hamper the long-term sustainability of firms.

The outcome of the study could be of relevance to internal governance mechanisms as well as policymaking. Considering financial constraints, firms should maintain a balanced strategy between firm investment and addressing stakeholder interests. Otherwise, over-investment might reduce environmental and social engagement in some dimensions, which could prompt criticisms and legitimacy concerns about firms and some stakeholders.

Past research has intensively focused on whether ESG – rather than ESG inequality – is associated with investment (in)efficiency. In addition, it has mostly formulated the causality running from ESG to firm investment, and hence, the literature lacks heterogeneity in this respect. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the potential effect of firm investment on ESG is of critical importance and has implications for determining whether over-investment causes variations across ESG engagement. Thus, the authors addressed this gap in the literature by investigating the relationship between over-investment and ESG inequality.

The purpose of this study is to analyze and empirically test the impact of Economic Freedom [(EF) measured by size of the government] and inequality on environmental pollutants in addition to macroeconomic variables like per capita GDP, governance indicators, etc. along with existence of non-linear (Kuznets) postulation between economic growth and per capita emissions.

The paper examines the select Asian nations' data attributes, first qualitatively using correlation data technique, followed by empirical testing using differenced Generalized Methods of Moments (GMM). Using the data of selected Asian countries for the period from 1981 to 2016, the authors have applied a dynamic panel technique.

The key findings that emerge from the study are as follows: first, there is weak evidence for the existence of the Kuznets curve based on the empirical results; second, the results indicate that increased EF (by lower government size) could enable to contain carbon emissions; third, there is a negative relationship between democracy and environmental quality (corroborating to the existing studies on carbon emissions); and fourth, there is a strong statistical evidence that increasing income inequality pairs with greater emissions in the middle range of Gini.

The paper conforms to the universally held conviction that government interventions are essentially less productive and the desirability of a reduced size of the government in realizing sustainable green growth with equity.

In an era of liberalization and privatization, it is argued that the role of the government needs to be redefined if not necessarily truncated.

The current paper incorporates Gini (inequality measure) through its intercountry range dummies to study the differential effect of Gini on carbon emissions. Also, in some of the recent studies, distributional issues have surfaced explicitly in the discussion of income–climatic change relationship, but EF largely remains missing. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the same empirically.

Although established theoretical models suggest that race differences in physical health are partially explained by exposures to environmental toxins, there is little empirical evidence to support these processes. We build on previous research by formally testing whether black–white differences in self-rated physical health are mediated by the embodiment of environmental toxins.

Using cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2007–2008), we employ ordinary least squares regression to model environmental toxins (from urine specimens) and overall self-rated health as a function of race and ethnicity. We employ the Sobel test of indirect effects to formally assess mediation.

Our results show that non-Hispanic black respondents tend to exhibit higher levels of total toxins, lead, and cadmium in their urine and poorer physical health than non-Hispanic whites, even with adjustments for age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES). Our mediation analyses suggest that blacks may exhibit poorer physical health than whites because they tend to embody higher levels of cadmium.

Research limitations include cross-sectional data and restricted indicators of SES.

This study contributes to previous work by bridging the fields of social epidemiology and environmental inequality and by formally testing established theoretical models.

At a time when the US federal government failed to act on climate change, California's success as a subnational climate policy leader has been widely celebrated. However, California's landmark climate law drove a wedge between two segments of the state's environmental community. On one side was a coalition of “market-oriented” environmental social movement organizations (SMOs), who allied with private corporations to advance market-friendly climate policy. On the other side was a coalition of “justice-oriented” environmental SMOs, who viewed capitalist markets as the problem and sought climate policy that would mitigate the uneven distribution of environmental harms within the state. The social movement literature is not well equipped to understand this case, in which coalitional politics helped one environmental social movement succeed in its policy objectives at the expense of another. In this chapter, we draw on legislative and regulatory texts, archival material, and interviews with relevant political actors to compare the policymaking influence of each of these coalitions, and we argue that the composition of the two coalitions is the key to understanding why one was more successful than the other. At the same time, we point out the justice-oriented coalition's growing power, as market-oriented SMOs seek to preserve their legitimacy.

By respecting nature's limits and investing in nature's wealth, we can protect and enhance the environment's ability to sustain human well-being. But how humans interact with nature is intimately tied to how we interact with each other. Those who are relatively powerful and wealthy typically gain disproportionate benefits from the economic activities that degrade the environment, while those who are relatively powerless and poor typically bear disproportionate costs. All else equal, wider political and economic inequalities tend to result in higher levels of environmental harm. For this reason, efforts to safeguard the natural environment must go hand-in-hand with efforts to achieve more equitable distributions of power and wealth in human societies. Globalization – the growing integration of markets and governance worldwide – today poses new challenges and new opportunities for both of these goals.

Research shows that the physical locations of correctional facilities often contribute to environmental hazards. Research also shows that correctional facilities are often sited near hazardous or undesirable land(s). In combination, incarcerated individuals may be at increased risk of experiencing negative health consequences because of exposure to various environmental harms. This is especially alarming as incarcerated individuals lack the capacity to decide where they are detained. In these cases, health issues that may have developed while detained may extend beyond incarceration. Furthermore, incarcerated individuals are not protected by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice policies.

Using a case study approach, the authors examine two specific correctional facilities in the USA to not only demonstrate the various environmental harms that incarcerated individuals encounter but also highlight carceral spaces as sites of environmental violations.

Additionally, the authors address the negative health consequences incarcerated individuals report because of exposure to these harms. They also argue that creating safer communities requires more than reducing crime and preventing criminal victimization. Creating safer communities also includes promoting environmental safety and protection from hazards that cause sickness and disease.

This work contributes to an emerging and growing body of literature that examines the intersection of carceral studies and environmental justice.

The environmental justice perspective represents a significant reframing of the traditional environmental discourse. Although few scholars in the environmental field pay attention to environmental framing, it is extremely important in the field. Environmental activists, policymakers, government, politicians, and business have long perceived, contextualized, and battled over environmental issues by establishing frames of reference. Framing refers to the process by which individuals and groups identify, interpret, and express social and political grievances. It is a scheme of interpretations that guides the way in which ideological meanings and beliefs are packaged by movement activists and presented to would-be supporters. Beliefs are important because they can be defined as ideas that might support or retard action in pursuit of desired values, goals, or outcomes. Social movement collective action frames are injustice frames because they are developed in opposition to already existing, established, widely accepted ideas, values, and beliefs. However, the social movement frames are intended to identify, highlight, and/or define unjust social conditions. Activists trying to develop new frames have to overcome the hurdle that many people (including would-be supporters) might accept the established or hegemonic frame as normal and/or tolerable. Collective action frames deny the immutability of undesirable conditions and promote the possibility of change through group action. Hence, social movement activists become potential social change agents in charge of their own destiny. They feel empowered to alter conditions (Goffman, 1974; Snow & Benford, 1992, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986; Turner & Killian, 1987; Piven & Cloward, 1979, p. 12; McAdam, 1982; Gamson, 1992; Gamson & Meyer, 1996).

This study is aimed at better understanding the evolution of inequality in carbon emission in intraincome and interincome groups in the world, and then to uncover the driving factors that affect inequality in carbon emission.

The approach is developed by combining the Theil index and the decomposition technique. Specifically, the Theil index is used to measure the inequality in carbon emissions from the perspective of global and each income group level. The extended logarithmic mean Divisia index was developed to explore the driving factors.

This study finds that the inequality in carbon emissions of intraincome group is getting better, whereas the inequality in carbon emission of interincome group is getting worse. And the difference in global carbon emissions between income groups is the main source of global carbon emission inequality, which is greater than that within each income group. In addition, the high-income group has transferred their carbon emissions to upper-middle income group by importing high-carbon-intensive products to meet the domestic demand, while lower-middle-income group do not fully participate in the international trade.

To alleviate the global carbon inequality, more attention should be paid to the inequality in carbon emission of interincome group, especially the trade between high-income group and upper-middle income group. From the perspective of driving factors, the impact of import and export trade dependence on the per capita carbon emissions of different income groups can almost offset each other, so the trade surplus effect should be the focus of each group.

In order to consider the impact of international trade, this study conducts a comprehensive analysis of global carbon emissions inequality from the perspective of income levels and introduces the import and export dependence effect and the trade surplus effect into the analysis framework of global carbon emission inequality drivers, which has not been any research carried out so far. The results of this paper not only provide policy recommendations for mitigating global carbon emissions but also provide a new research perspective for subsequent inequality research.