Discussion Paper No. 21

Environment and Growth
Ryo Horii
Masako Ikefuji

February, 2014

Data Science and Service Research
Discussion Paper

Center for Data Science and Service Research
Graduate School of Economic and Management
Tohoku University27-1 Kawauchi, Aobaku
Sendai 980-8576, JAPANEnvironment and Growth∗
Ryo Horii, Tohoku University†
Masako Ikefuji, University of Southern Denmark‡February 2014

Abstract
This paper examines the implications of the mutual causality between environmental quality and economic growth. While economic growth deteriorates the environment
through increasing amounts of pollution, the deteriorated environment in turn limits
the possibility of further economic growth. In a less developed country, this link, which
we call “limits to growth,” emerges as the “poverty-environment trap,” which explains
the persistent international inequality both in terms of income and environment. This
link also threatens the sustainability of the world’s economic growth, particularly whenthe emission of greenhouse gases raises the risk of natural disasters. Stronger environmental policies are required to overcome this link. While there is a trade-oﬀ between
the environment and growth in the short run, we show that an appropriate policy can
improve both in the long run.
Keywords: Environmental Kuznets Curve, Limits to Growth, Poverty-Environment
Trap, Sustainability, Natural Disasters∗

This paper has been prepared as a chapter in Shunsuke Managi (ed.), Handbook of Environmental

Economics in Asia, Routledge. The authors are grateful to Iain Fraser and Katsuyuki Shibayama for theirhelpful comments and suggestions. We also thank Stefan Jungblut, Nobuyuki Hanaki, and the staﬀs at
Paderborn University, GREQAM (Aix-Marseille University), and Kent University for the opportunity towrite this paper. This study was ﬁnancially supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research(23730182, 23530394), DAAD, the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation, the Nomura Foundation, and the
Asahi Breweries Foundation. All remaining errors are our own.
†

Corresponding Author: Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University. 27-1

Kawauchi, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8576, Japan.
‡

Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark. Niels Bohrs

Vej 9, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark.

1

USA

35,000Singapore
30,000Japan
S. Korea

25,000

Malaysia
China

20,000Indonesia(Java before 1880)

15,000India

10,000

0

1800
1811
1822
1833
1844
1855
1866
1877
1888
1899
1910
1921
1932
1943
1954
1965
1976
1987
1998
2009

5,000

Figure 1: Long-term evolution of per capita GDP in the U.S. and Asian countries (in 1990
international dollars). Data source: Bolt and van Zanden (2013).

1

Introduction

One of the most important and challenging questions for economists has been how toharmonize economic growth with the natural world. Since the industrial revolution,
the growth rate of income per capita has been fairly stable in the United States. As
shown in Figure 1, the measured per capita real GDP in the U.S. has been expanding
exponentially, with its growth rate after the mid-19th century being around 2%. Figure
1 also shows that a number of Asian countries are in the process of catching up to the
U.S. income level. Although they diﬀer in the timing when modern economic growth
took oﬀ (e.g., Japan’s modern growth started relatively earlier, while China’s rapid
growth is a much more recent phenomenon), their growth rates were typically higher
than the U.S. after the second half of the 20th century. As long as this trend continues, the per capita income of successful countries will converge to the exponentiallyexpanding U.S. per capita GDP level.
However, given that the world’s economic growth means the exponential expansionof output, especially if it requires ever increasing inputs of natural resources, it isobvious that this process cannot be continued for a very long time. This was thetheme investigated by Meadows et al. (1972) under the title of the ”Limits to Growth,”
which subsequently led to a large body of literature that examined the possibility of
economic growth under resource scarcity (seminal studies include Dasgupta and Heal,

2

1974; Smith, 1974; Stiglitz, 1974; see also a survey by Krautkraemer, 1998).
In addition to resource scarcity, the pollution that accompanies the production or
use of particular kinds of inputs poses another constraint for economic growth. Although the literature on pollution and growth has largely been disjointed from thaton the resource scarcity,1 the fundamental root of the problem is the same: the ﬁniteness of the natural environment. Suppose that the aggregate production function hasconstant returns to scale and that all inputs are reproducible or non-exhaustible. In
such a setting, long-term growth is typically achieved by a homothetic expansion of all
inputs and outputs.2 However, if the production or use of some types of inputs involves
pollution, such an expansion will result in an increasingly deteriorating environment.
Given that nature itself cannot be expanded along with other inputs, the intensity ofpollution (i.e., the ratio of pollution to environmental capacity) will increase with thegrowing production. The deteriorated environment in turn makes sustained economic
growth diﬃcult for a number of reasons, such as health problems and frequent natural
disasters caused by global warming. In the paper “Are there limits to growth?”, Stokey(1998) considered this type of problem using an AK growth model with pollution andshowed that it is not optimal to pursue sustained growth as long as the technology
level is constant.
In this paper, we explain the implications of the interrelation between the environment and economic growth. In particular, we focus on two issues. The ﬁrst is thefeasibility of economic development in stagnant poor countries that are suﬀering bothfrom both low income and environmental degradation. Second, at the global scale weconsider the sustainability of world economic growth in the future. While these twoissues have so far been treated in two separate bodies of literature, we show that thekey to understanding both issues is the same: the mutual causality between the envi-

1

Theoretical models of economic growth that examine the relationship between pollution and growthoften assumed away the ﬁniteness of pollution-generating inputs. Besides the analytical tractability, one
substantial reason for this is that when the emission of pollutants binds the possibility of economic growth,
the constraint of resource scarcity becomes slack and will not aﬀect the equilibrium or optimal outcome.
Similarly, those that focus on the resource scarcity typically assume away pollution, because if the resource
constraint is stricter, pollution will only have secondary eﬀects on the possibility of economic growth.
Nonetheless, some recent studies numerically examine the intricate interaction of pollution and the ﬁnitenessof resources and obtained quantitative implications of the interaction (for example, see Acemoglu et al.
2012).
2

In the endogenous growth literature, this type of model is called the “AK” growth model because, inthe simplest form, the production function can be written as Y = AK, where A is a constant technology
parameter and K is the reproducible input, which is usually called capital (e.g., Rebelo 1991).

3

pollution (environmental degradation).

P

Y=0 (limits to growth)・ab (Environmental
Kuznets Curve)Yincome (output)

Figure 2: The relationship between income and pollution.

ronment and economic growth. After intuitively explaining how this interaction works
in the next section, we introduce two formal models that focus on the two issues in
sections 3 and 4.

2

Mutual causality between the environment andeconomic growth
As we discussed in the introduction, we will inevitably face the “limits to growth”
problem if the environment continues degrading as the economy develops. The consequences of “limits to growth” are illustrated in Figure 2, which depicts the mutual
relationship between pollution and the income level in one phase diagram. In the ﬁgure, the Ẏ = 0 curve reﬂects the causality from pollution to long-term income: for agiven intensity of pollution Pt , the output can grow up to the Ẏ = 0 curve in the longrun.3 The downward slope of this curve means that the potential for economic growthis adversely aﬀected by environmental degradation. For example, when air pollution
harms human health (WHO, 2006), it not only lowers the productivity of workers but
also reduces life expectancy and, hence, the return on education, which in turn lowers
the incentives for parents to provide their children with higher education. Without
suﬃcient educated workers, (foreign) ﬁrms with advanced technologies will be reluc3

The income (output) of the economy can grow only up to this downward sloping curve. For a given

level of pollution, if Y is smaller than this long-term level, the growth rate of output is positive, while thegrowth rate is negative if Y is already larger the long-term level.

4

tant to invest in such regions. These considerations imply that higher pollution (i.e.,environmental degradation) will adversely aﬀect the long-term income.
What, then, determines environmental quality? We may think of economic growth
as a determinant of pollution. At the initial stage of economic growth, the scale ofproduction is small, and thus, both income and pollution would be small. In theﬁgure, this means that the economy starts from a point near the origin. Then, as the
economy develops, the scale of production increases. As long as the economy operates
under the same technology and the same relative factor prices, the pollution P would
increase proportionally with output. In the ﬁgure, this means that the economy moves
to the upper right direction and will eventually reach the Ẏ = 0 curve, beyond which
the economy cannot grow (denoted by path a).
While this seems a pessimistic result, in reality the technology level is not constantbut improves as income grows. If improved technologies cause less pollution for a given
amount of production, economic growth could mitigate the environmental problem
through technological change.4 This consideration leads to the Environmental Kuznets
Curve (EKC), a hypothesis that there should be an inverted U-shaped relationshipbetween per capita income and various pollutants or environmental indicators. If
this hypothesis is correct, environmental degradation continues until the income percapita reaches a certain level, but beyond it environmental quality will improve as
the economy grows. In Figure 2, the path denoted as b shows the movement of theeconomy following this hypothetical EKC. If pollution begins to decrease before theeconomy hits the Ẏ = 0 locus, it might be possible that the economy can grow beyond
the “limits to growth.” In fact, many studies, including seminal studies by Grossman
and Krueger (1991, 1995) and Selden and Song (1995), conﬁrm the existence of the
EKC for local air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), suspended particulate
4

More precisely, there are both supply-side and demand-side factors behind the eﬀect of economic growthon the environmental quality. Grossman and Krueger (1991) assessed three supply-side determinants for
the EKC: scale eﬀects, composition eﬀects, and technological eﬀects. The scale eﬀect simply means thatpollution increases with the level of economic activity, as discussed so far in the main text. Second, thecomposition eﬀect reﬂects a general structural change from pollution-intensive production to less pollutionintensive production in the development process. Third, the technological eﬀect refers to an improvement
in environmental quality through the introduction of cleaner technology resulting from economic growth.
The shape of the EKC will reﬂect the aggregate magnitudes of these three eﬀects (see a review by Brock
and Taylor, 2005). Our models in Sections 3 and 4 formally consider the composition and technologicaleﬀects and show that EKC emerges endogenously. On the demand side, the people’s demand for environmental quality tends to increase as their income grows because they can aﬀord to devote more resources toabatement. This mechanism critically depends on the income elasticity of environmental quality (see John
and Pecchenino, 1994; McConnell, 1997; Andreoni and Levinson, 2001; Lieb, 2002, 2004).

5

pollution (environmental degradation).

P

Y=0 (limits to growth)

Poverty-Environment trap

・
c
d

・

better steady stateesustained economic growthYincome (output)

Figure 3: Poverty Environment Trap

matter (SPM), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx ).
Note, however, that the existence of the EKC does not always mean that every
economy can overcome the “limits to growth.” Because of the diﬀerences in the characteristics of countries, including technology, resource endowments and institutions(particularly institutions for environmental protection), the shape and location of the
EKC vary across countries. Three paths in Figure 3 illustrate the consequences ofdiﬀerent EKC shapes. Path c illustrates the case in which the economy hits the Ẏ = 0
curve before reaching the top of the EKC. At this point, the economy is trapped by
the mutual causality between environmental degradation and poverty. The environmental quality is low because the economy is poor. Such an economy cannot aﬀord
to employ better and cleaner technology because everyday consumption is their ﬁrst
priority and they cannot ﬁnance the costs of required investments that would improvetheir life and environment in the future. Similarly, it would be diﬃcult for people insuch an economy to agree to set stricter environmental regulations because such regulations would seem to (at least temporarily) further reduce their low incomes. At thesame time, the economy is poor because environmental degradation lowers the productivity of workers, reduces their life expectancy, gives less incentives for parents toprovide good education for their children, and so forth. We call such a situation the“poverty-environment trap”.
In Figure 3, path d shows that an economy that maintains low pollution intensity
along the process of economic development can get over the top of the EKC andreaches a steady state in which both the environment and income are better than6

annual mean PM10 (ug/m3)

250
India

200
150

Bangladesh
Nepal China

100

Republic of
Korea

Myanmar
50

Japan

Thailand Malaysia

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

income per capita (current US$)
Figure 4: Income and Air Pollution in Asian countries. Vertical axis: Annual mean PM10
concentrations in the capital city, where PM10 means particulate matter with a diameter of 10 µm or
less. Source: Urban outdoor air pollution database, Department of Public Health and Environment, World
Health Organization, September 2011. Per capita income is from World Development Indicators (WDI),Worldbank.

those of economies trapped by the poverty-environment trap. Path e shows that itis theoretically possible that an economy can grow indeﬁnitely without facing limits
to growth. These considerations suggest that in the long run we will observe large
diﬀerences across countries in terms of the intensity of pollution and income level andwill also ﬁnd a negative relationship between these two variables. Figure 4 conﬁrms thisexpectation, which shows that there is a negative relationship between air pollution(PM10 concentrations) and the per capita income level among Asian countries. In
Section 3, we present a formal model with a microeconomic foundation that explains
the existence of multiple steady states—–the poverty-environment trap and a better
steady state—–and we discuss how the environment is related to international income
diﬀerences.
Pollution is a serious problem not only at the level of individual countries but also
at the global scale, particularly regarding the issue of global warming. In this case,we should view the whole global economy as one entity because the emission of global
warming gases depends on the economic activities in all countries. Can we then observe
an inverted-U relationship between the average income in the world and the emissionof greenhouse gases? Thus far, the answer is negative. In many papers (e.g., Dinda,

7

all disasters

0.5
weather related
disasters

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

2012

2008

2004

2000

1996

1992

1988

1984

1980

1976

1972

1968

1964

0
1960

Damages by Disasters / World GDP (%)

0.6

Figure 5: Ratio of Economic Damage from Natural Disasters Worldwide to World GDP.
The solid line indicates the sum of damage from climatological, hydrological, and meteorological disasters.
Source: EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database, CRED, the Université Catholique de Louvain.
World GDP is from WDI, Worldbank.

2004; Kijima et al., 2010), the existence of the EKC has not been supported for the
global warming gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ). If global pollution continues toincrease as the world economy grows, it will pose a threat to the sustainability of future
growth.
In fact, NASA suggests that an increase in global temperatures results in an increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, awetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms.5 Figure 5
shows that in the last 50 years total economic damages in the world have increased
more rapidly than the world’s GDP, and most of the increase was due to weather
related disasters. For example, Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 caused total economic damages of $125 billion in the United States. More recently, typhoon Haiyan (orYolanda) in the Philippines in November 2013 generated $12 billion in economic damages, an enormous sum for a small country. CRED reports that ﬂoods appeared to be
most frequent during the last two decades, and the highest number of ﬂoods occurredin Asia.6 The total damage and losses from the 2011 ﬂoods in Thailand amounted to$40 billion, more than 1/10th of the country’s GDP. Given that the economic damages

5“The rising cost of natural hazard,” by Holli Riebeek, March 28, 2005, NASA Earth Observatory.

6

CRED Crunch, Issue No.32, August 2013, Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.

8

(ii)
P

.

green house gases

green house gases

(i)
Y=0

f
^

P

thresholdlevel of pollution

h

.

Y=0

current
statusgcurrent
statusP^Pithresholdlevel of pollution

Yworld’s incomejYworld’s income

Figure 6: global pollution and sustainability of growthfrom natural disasters come primarily in the form of capital destruction, a higher riskof natural disasters inhibits the process of capital accumulation, not only by direct
destruction of the stock but also by reducing the expected return from investing in
new production facilities. If global warming continues with economic growth, and if
these weather related disasters are intensiﬁed accordingly, it is clear that at some point
further economic growth will become unsustainable.
We can again illustrate such a consequence in a phase diagram. Two panels in Figure 6 show the hypothetical evolution of the income of the world Y and the intensityof greenhouse gases P in a phase diagram. We again have a downward sloping Ẏ = 0
curve. A higher intensity of greenhouse gases will cause a higher risk of natural disasters. Given that the risk of natural disasters lowers new investments for production, it
will lead to a smaller steady-state stock of capital and, hence, a lower steady-state levelof world income. One diﬀerence from Figure 2 is that we now consider the possibilityof endogenous growth. In the literature of endogenous growth, it is considered thatphysical and human capital can be accumulated without reaching a steady state, andthat the rate of accumulation is determined endogenously by underlying economic conditions such as technology and preference (we will present a formal model in Section
4). In the current setting, a key factor in the economic conditions is the risk of natural
disasters, and it would be legitimate to suppose that the long-term rate of economic
growth becomes positive only when the greenhouse gas intensity P is lower than somethreshold value Pb. This means that the Ẏ = 0 locus asymptotes to the P = Pb line as
Y becomes larger.
Path f in ﬁgure 6 (i) shows the evolution of the economy when there is no eﬀort

9

to reduce emissions per output. In this case, P/Y is constant. As the world’s income
grows, the pollution increases proportionally, as does the risk of natural disasters. The
magnitude of the risk eventually reaches the point at which ﬁrms do not want to invest
in additional stock of capital, and this is the limit of growth for the economy in thecase of a constant P/Y ratio. To sustain economic growth, the economy needs tostay P below the threshold value of Pb, and this requires continued reductions in the
P/Y ratio as Y increases. The P/Y ratio could be reduced by a number of factors,
including the introduction of more advanced production technologies, the substitutionof polluting inputs for cleaner ones, and abatement activities. However, because it isoften costly for private ﬁrms to reduce pollution, it is necessary for the authorities toencourage them to do so by appropriate policies, for example, by raising the rate ofenvironmental tax on the emissions of pollutants.
Path g in ﬁgure 6 (i) shows one such possibility, where the amount of pollution is
kept barely below threshold Pb. On this path, the P/Y ratio is continually reduced,
for example, by increasing the environmental tax rate, but the amount of pollution P
itself increases gradually toward the threshold level of Pb. In this case, economic growth
can be sustained in the meaning that the amount of output increases without bound,but the long run rate of growth will become lower because the risk of natural disasters
gradually rises, which gives disincentives for further investments. Path h illustrates
a growth path under a stricter environmental policy, for example, where the tax rateis raised at a quicker rate than in path g. When such a policy induces the amountof pollution to become lower than the current level, we will eventually observe the
EKC for global pollution. In this case, the adverse eﬀects of global warming on growth(including the risk of natural disasters) will become milder in the long run. If thepositive eﬀect of the lower disaster risk exceeds the negative eﬀect of higher taxation,such a policy will enable a higher long-term rate of economic growth than in path g.
The preceding discussion implicitly assumed that the current level of global pollution has not yet exceeded the threshold level, but this is actually far from obvious.
Figure 6 (ii) depicts the possibility that the current level of pollution is already too
high to maintain long-term growth. If this is the case, it is necessary to adopt a stricter
environmental policy that reduces not only the P/Y ratio (e.g., path i) but also theglobal level of pollution P (e.g., path j). This means that economic growth is sustainable only when the amount of global pollution follows the EKC; in other words,
the EKC for global pollution is a requirement for sustained growth. Although it might
be considered that the EKC is a result of a successful process of economic growth,
the above discussion suggests a possibility of reverse causality in that the sustained
economic growth can be a result of appropriate environmental policies that achieve the

10

EKC.
Note that even when a strict environmental policy is required for maintaining economic growth, it does not necessarily mean that this is always desirable in terms ofwelfare because, in the short run, consumers might need to reduce consumption because of increased production costs (and, hence, higher prices). Even in the long run, astricter environmental policy does not always imply a higher long-term rate of growth
because increased production costs mean lower proﬁts, which might reduce the incentives to invest even under favorable natural environments. Therefore, we need todevelop an economic model to explicitly investigate the mutual causality between theenvironment and growth and, by using it, examine the desirable policy. Also, in thecase of local pollution it is necessary to develop a formal model to see the precise causeof the poverty-environmental trap, which will be indispensable in understanding theroot of the international income inequalities and helping those trapped countries. The
next two sections are devoted to these tasks.

3

The poverty-environment trap and international

inequalities
In this section, we develop a model of local pollution and economic development, andexplain the mechanism of the poverty-environment trap. The following model is basedon a simpliﬁed version of Ikefuji and Horii (2007).

3.1

A model of local pollution and technological choice

Consider an overlapping generations model where each individual lives for two periods.
Individuals in their ﬁrst and second periods are called young and adult agents, respectively. In youth, agents invest in human capital through education, which is necessary
if they want to adopt both more productive and cleaner technology later in their life.
In adulthood, each agent works and bears a single child (a young agent). The eﬃciency
of both education and production depends on their health, which in turn depends on
the amount of pollution in the environment.
Let us call an agent who is born in period t a generation-t agent. We normalize
the number of agents of each generation to one. The lifetime utility of a generation-t
agent is given by
Ut = log cyt + (1 − β) log cat+1 + β log xt+1 ,0 < β < 1,(1)

where cyt , cat+1 , and xt+1 represent the amount of consumption in youth, in adulthood,and the amount of transfer that is given to their children, respectively.

11

Suppose that the health status of a generation-t agent is negatively aﬀected by theamount of pollution in her youth. Speciﬁcally, we assume that the ability of an agent
is given by ℓt = L − Pt , where L is a constant representing the ability of an agent under
the pristine environment, while Pt denotes the actual amount of pollution in period
t.7 Let xt be the amount of transfer that each young generation-t agent receives fromher parents. We consider a situation of a developing country where the credit market
is imperfect, and we therefore assume that agents can neither borrow nor lend. For
simplicity, we also assume that goods are not storable, so they must be used within agiven period. A part of the transfer is used for consumption cyt . The remaining et isused as an input to human capital investment, which is combined with her ability tolearn ℓt and yields ht+1 = ϕet ℓt units of human capital for her adulthood, where ϕ > 0
is a parameter. The budget constraint in her youth can be written as:
cyt + et = xt ,0 ≤ et ≤ xt .

(2)

In adulthood (period t + 1), each agent produces goods by employing two typesof technologies. One is sustainable technology, which produces goods from labor andhuman capital according tos
yt+1= As (ht+1 )θ (st+1 ℓt )1−θ ,As > 0, 0 < θ < 1,(3)

where st+1 denotes the fraction of generation-t agents’ time devoted to sustainable
technology. This production technology does not cause pollution and, in that sense,is clean. The other technology is called primitive technology, which uses only labor to
produce goods, according topyt+1= Ap (1 − st+1 )ℓt ,Ap > 0,(4)

but it emits pollution. We assume that the emission is proportional to the amount of
output from the primitive technology and that the amount of pollution in the environment evolves according top
Pt+1 = (1 − δ)Pt + ηbyt+1,

0 < δ < 1, ηb > 0.

(5)

p
s
An adult agent uses her total output yt+1 ≡ yt+1
+ yt+1for consumption and transfer

for her child:ps
cat+1 + xt+1 = yt+1 ≡ yt+1
+ yt+1.

7(6)Here, we simplify the model of Ikefuji and Horii (2007), and ignore the variations in the abilities amongindividuals in a generation, abstracting from the issue of income distribution within an economy.

12

3.2

Choice between dirty and clean technologies

The problem of a generation-t individual can be described as follows: given the amountof transfer from her parent xt and the pollution Pt , she chooses education et , thefraction of time devoted to sustainable technology st+1 , consumption cyt and cat+1 , andtransfer to her child xt+1 . Her objective is to maximize lifetime utility (1), subject
to budget constraints (2) and (6), and production technology (3) and (4). Because
condition (2) includes inequality constraints due to credit market imperfection, thisproblem can be solved by the Kuhn-Tucker method. We ﬁnd that the solution to theabove problem critically depends on the amount of transfer from her parent xt . Notethat under the utility function (1), xt = βyt holds because adult agents always leave
the fraction β of their income for their children as a transfer. Because it is easier
to interpret the result in terms of income level (rather than amount of transfer), we
describe the solution using yt .
If the parent generation was poor and their income yt was smaller than a thresholdlevel of y ≡ (1 − θ)/2σθ, where σ ≡ (1/2)βϕ(As (1 − θ)/Ap )1/θ , agents cannot receive
education (et = 0) and have to rely completely on the primitive technology (st+1 = 0),
which worsens the quality of the environment.8 Conversely, if the income of previous
generation yt was higher than y ≡ (1 + θ)/2σθ, i.e., if their parents are suﬃciently rich,agents can receive suﬃcient education (et = θβyt /(1 + θ)) such that they rely only
on the sustainable technology (st+1 = 1), which improves the environmental quality.
Finally, if yt was between y and y, agents receive some education (et = β(yt − y)/2)
but have to rely partly on the primitive technology (st+1 = σ(yt − y) < 1). Still, it canbe seen that the dependence on the primitive technology decreases (st+1 increases) as
the parents become richer. To summarize, we can write st+1 in terms of yt as:



0



st+1 = s(yt ) ≡ σ(yt − y)




1

if yt ≤ y ≡ (1 − θ)/2σθ,
if yt ∈ (y, y),(7)

if yt ≥ y ≡ (1 + θ)/2σθ,which is consistent with the observation that richer countries tend to use cleaner technologies in a larger fraction of their production.
ps
The amount of production yt+1
+ yt+1is determined by the relative dependence on

the two types of technologies st+1 = s(yt ) in (7) and the ability of agents ℓt = L − Pt
as well as human capital ht+1 = ϕet ℓt = ϕet (L − Pt ). We thus obtain the evolution of

8

As can be seen from equation (8), σ ≡ (1/2)βϕ(As (1 − θ)/Ap )1/θ represents the response of technology

choice st+1 to a change in the parent’s income yt when yt is in the intermediate range.

13

Pt

Pt
L

.

y = 0 (limits to growth)

.

´L
´+±

P = 0 (pollution
in the long run)

P
P

yt
0

y

yt

y

0

y

y

Figure 7: Evolution of income (left) and pollution (right) over generations

income yt over the generations:



Ap



(
)
yt+1 = ye(yt )(L − Pt ), where ye(yt ) ≡ Ap y + yt /2yAs [ϕθβy /(1 + θ)]θt

if yt ≤ y,if yt ∈ (y, y),(8)

if yt ≥ y.

Let us examine the “limits to growth” of this economy. The ẏt = 0 locus can bederived by setting yt+1 = yt in equation (8).9 The result is[]1/(1−θ)θAs (ϕθβ/(1 + θ)) (L − Pt )≥yy ∗ (Pt ) ≡ Ap (2/(L − Pt ) − 1/(L − P ))−1 ∈ (y, y)



 p

A (L − Pt ) ≤ y

if Pt ≤ P ,if Pt ∈ (P , P ),(9)

if Pt ≥ P ,where P ≡ L − y/Ap and P ≡ (1 + θ)P − θL.
Figure 7 (left) depicts the ẏ = 0 locus (i.e., function y = y ∗ (Pt ) in equation 9) in(y, P ) space. The level of income increases over generations if and only if the (y, P )pair is to the left of this locus. Similarly to Figure 2, the ẏ = 0 locus is downward
sloping. This means that the economy can grow up to a higher level of income whenpollution is lower and, hence, the environment is better. In this economy, this occurs
for two reasons. First, when the environment is better (Pt is lower), the agents havegreater ability to work (ℓt = L − Pt ), such that they can produce more output. Thisis a direct eﬀect of the environment on income. There is also an indirect eﬀect that9

Because the model in this section is formulated in discrete time, it is more precise to call it the yt+1 = yt

locus. However, for comparison between the results of this model and the discussion in section 2 (e.g., Figure2), we intentionally do not make a clear distinction here between continuous time models and discrete timemodels.

14

is manifested over the generations: when the environment is better, parents can leavea larger amount of income to their children, and children themselves also have higeablility to learn (ℓt+1 = L − Pt+1 ), both of which enable agents in the next generation
to adopt a better technology. In Figure 7 (left), the eﬀect of the environment on thetechnological shift appears when the amount of pollution is between P and P . When
Pt is within this range, a marginal change Pt has a larger eﬀect on long-term income
through inducing agents to employ the productive (and sustainable) technology in alarger portion of total production (i.e., the long-run level of st+1 increases with Pt ).
This explains why the ẏ = 0 locus is ﬂatter in this segment than in other segments.

3.3

Dynamic interaction between income and environment

We have shown that, given the amount of pollution Pt , the evolution of income is determined by equation (8). How, then, is Pt determined? Will it follow the environmental
Kuznets curve? From (4), (5), (7) and ℓt = L − Pt , the evolution of the amount ofpollution in equilibrium can be written as
Pt+1 = (1 − δ)Pt + η(1 − s(yt ))(L − Pt ),(10)

where η ≡ ηbAp . Equation (10) shows that the evolution of Pt is also determined by the(y, P ) pair. By applying Pt+1 = Pt for (10), we obtain the stationary level of pollution
for each given income level yt : /ηL (η + δ)/P ∗ (yt ) = ηL (η + δ/σ(y − yt ))




0

if yt ≤ y,if yt ∈ (y, y),(11)

if yt ≥ y.

Let us call the curve given by (11) the Ṗ = 0 locus, as depicted in Figure 7 (right).
The amount of pollution in this economy increases toward the Ṗ = 0 locus wheneverthe (y, P ) pair is below this locus. Observe that the Ṗ = 0 locus is (weakly) downward
sloping because a richer economy can aﬀord to invest more in human capital and, hence,
can employ cleaner technologies (recall equation 7), which implies lower pollution in
the long run. Note, however, that the amount of income yt itself changes depending
on Pt , and hence we need to examine the dynamic interaction between yt and Pt overthe process of economic development. This can be done by combining the ẏ = 0 locus
and the Ṗ = 0 locus in one ﬁgure.
Figure 8 depicts the phase diagram of the dynamic system in (y, P ) space.10 We
can observe that there are two stable steady states, T and B, and one saddle point U.
10Here, we assume that the parameters satisfy ηL/(η + δ) > P and P > 0, so that the two loci haveintersections.

15

Pt
L

.

y=0
T (poverty-environment trap)

´L
´+±

.

P=0
m

U (unstable)
l

dle
sad

h
pat
(better steady state)k (EKC)

0

B

y

yt

Figure 8: The poverty-environment trap and the environmental Kuznets curve in equilibrium

It depends on the initial conditions which steady-state the economy converges to in thelong run. In this system, both yt and Pt are state variables, and therefore, the initialcondition is given by a pair of the income of the initial adult generation y0 (i.e., theparents of generation-0 agents) and the initial amount of pollution P0 .11 Because weare interested in the process of economic growth, we suppose y0 to be small so that
we can examine the process from the initial stage of development. It will also makesense to assume the initial amount of pollution P0 to be small if we consider that theeconomy starts from a pre-industrial society, but the precise values of P0 , as well as
the parameters of the model, will vary across economies.
Figure 8 shows three representative equilibrium paths that start from slightly different initial combinations of (y0 , P0 ). Path k illustrates an equilibrium path whenthe economy starts from a low P/Y ratio. On the ﬁrst half of this path, pollution
gradually accumulates while the output increases. However, once the income level sufﬁciently rises and the path moves past the Ṗ = 0 locus, the accumulated amount ofpollution begins to decrease. This is because the economy now has enough income
to invest in human capital and, therefore, no longer needs to rely as much on dirty
primitive technologies. Thereafter, as the environment improves, the ability (or healthstatus) of the workers also improves, which enables the income level to increase further
toward the better steady state B. This path explains that the interaction between the11

Strictly speaking, the predetermined variables in this system are xt and Pt . However, because xt = βyt

always holds, specifying yt is equivalent to specifying xt .

16

income level and pollution can endogenously generate the EKC. However, this path is
not the only possibility.
Path l in Figure 8 illustrates another equilibrium path when the economic development begins with a higher P/Y ratio. In this case, the economy hits the ẏ = 0
locus (the limits to growth) before encountering the Ṗ = 0 locus. This means that theeconomic growth has come to its limit due to the environmental degradation, before
the income level reaches the top of the EKC. This is not the end of the story. From
this point, environmental degradation further continues because the economy is still
below the Ṗ = 0 curve. After passing the ẏ = 0 locus, the income actually decreases
due to the deteriorated ability of workers who are seriously aﬀected by a poor environment. The economy eventually converges to steady state T, which we call thepoverty-environment trap. In this trap, workers cannot escape from poverty because
the deteriorated environment lowers their ability and productivity. At the same time,the economy cannot escape from the deteriorated environment because workers are toopoor to obtain human capital and, hence, cannot employ cleaner technologies. Thismutual causality creates a stagnating economy that suﬀers both from poverty and a deteriorated environment. Path m in Figure 8 shows the case where the initial P/Y ratio
is even higher. In this case, the economy converges directly to the poverty-environment
trap T, which is locally stable and can be approached from any direction in the phase
diagram.
These two long-term possibilities, the better steady state and the poverty-environment
trap, are grossly diﬀerent both in terms of environmental quality and income. What,then, separates the successful economies that get past the peak of the EKC from theeconomies that stagnate in the mutual trap of poverty and environmental degradation?
Observe from Figure 8 that there exists a saddle path that converges to the saddle point
U. Because both y0 and P0 are predetermined state variables, there is virtually zero
possibility that the economy happens to be on this path. However, the location ofthis saddle path is important because it separates the two long-term outcomes: theeconomy converges to the poverty-environment trap if and only if the initial (y0 , P0 )pair is above the saddle path. Therefore, even when all parameters are identical, aslight diﬀerence in the initial conditions (which depends on many factors, e.g., whether
a country has been colonized or not and, if so, by what country) may explain persistentinternational inequality in income and environmental quality. In addition, if the parameters of economies are not identical (e.g., because of regional characteristics), thelocation of the saddle path as well as the locations of the steady states would diﬀer
across countries. This explains another possible reason why some economies have successfully developed along with a cleaner environment, while others are still suﬀering

17

from low income and poor environmental conditions, as we have observed in Figure 4.

3.4

Environmental policies for trapped economies

Now let us discuss how environmental policies can or cannot save economies that are
currently trapped in the poverty-environment trap and whether such policies can mitigate the international inequality both in terms of income and the environment. We
have explained that, in a trapped economy, the environmental quality and thus the
productivity was low because people rely on the primitive technologies that emit pollution. A direct approach to solve this problem is to limit the use of such technologies,
i.e., to force them to reduce pollution even if it is costly for individuals. Alternatively,
the authorities can tax the use of dirty technologies (or, equivalently, tax emissions)and use the tax revenue for pollution abatement activities. In either case, the net
income from using the primitive technology Ap will fall,12 but the amount of pollution
per unit output from the primitive technology, given by parameter η, will also fall. To
examine the equilibrium outcome of such policies in a convenient way, we suppose thatboth Ap and η are functions of the strictness of the environmental policy, denoted byα ∈ [0, 1], and that both are decreasing in α.13
Figure 9 illustrates how such environmental policies aﬀect the trapped economy.
Recall that in the poverty-environment trap, both the environmental quality and theincome are low so that Pt > P and yt < y hold. In this region, from (9) and (11),
we can conﬁrm that the ẏ = 0 locus shifts leftward, while the Ṗ = 0 locus shifts
downward. This implies that there are two opposing eﬀects of environmental policies
on the income of a trapped economy. First, the leftward shift of the ẏ = 0 locus means
that, given the quality of the environment, the household income declines. This result
comes directly from our assumption that environmental policies that aim to reduce
emissions are costly for individuals. If it takes time for the environmental quality tochange, as assumed in equation (10), then the short-term eﬀect of environmental policy
on income is necessarily negative.
In the long-run, however, the environment improves, as reﬂected in the downward
shift in the Ṗ = 0 locus. With a better environment, the productivity of workers will
improve, increasing their incomes. The long-term net eﬀect of environmental policy

12

Originally we assumed Ap to be a technology parameter. Here, we reinterpret Ap as the productivity

after deducting the cost of abatement activity or after deducting the environmental tax.
13

Speciﬁcally, in Figure 9 we assume that a stricter α reduces the two parameters proportionally: Ap (α) =(1−α)Ap0 and η(α) = (1−α)η0 . Equation (10) implies that for a given amount of labor input the incrementsof pollution are reduced by a factor of (1 − α)2 .

18

L Pt

.

y=0

.
´L
´+±

T (α= 0 )

P=0

T'

P

yt

y

Figure 9: Eﬀect of a small environmental tax or the enforcement of mild pollution reduction
in a trapped economy (a magniﬁed view around steady state T). The dashed loci show the phase
diagram without the environmental tax. The solid loci show the case of α = 0.15 (i.e., when both AP andη are 85% of their original values).

on income depends on the relative magnitude of these two eﬀects. (In other words, it
depends on the relative signiﬁcance of the reductions in AP and η, or more generally,
it depends on the elasticity of the productivity loss to the reduction of emissions). As
illustrated in Figure 9, the net eﬀect can be negative even in the long-run. The steadystate level of income in steady state T’ under an environmental policy of α = 0.15 islower than the income in steady state T with α = 0.
The above results suggest that it is not easy to form a consensus on the environmental policy to reduce emissions in a poverty-environmentally trapped economy because
it will further undermine the already low income in the short run, and it is not certain
whether it will raise income even in the long-run. However, a suﬃciently strong environmental policy can have quite diﬀerent implications. As illustrated by Figure 10, theṖ = 0 and ẏ = 0 loci become detached from each other when α is large enough. Thismeans that the poverty-environmental trap no longer exists in the new phase diagram,and because of this structural change the economy necessarily converges to the now
unique steady state B. In this transition, the environment improves simultaneouslywith the rising income, as in the latter half of the EKC.
Why does a strong environmental policy give rise to such a drastic change? One
possible reason is that a better environmental quality improves the productivity and,hence, the incomes of workers and enables their children to invest in human capital and

19

Pt
L
T (α= 0 )

´L
´+±

.

y=0

.
P=0

B
0

y

yt

y

Figure 10: Eﬀect of a large environmental tax or the enforcement of large pollution reduction in a trapped economy. The dashed loci show the phase diagram with α = 0. The solid loci show
the case of α = 0.27 (i.e., when both AP and η are 73% of their original values).

cleaner technologies. However, as we have explained above, environmental policies toreduce emissions do not necessarily improve income as long as individuals are relying
on dirty primitive technologies (i.e., when Pt > P and yt < y), and therefore, thisﬁrst cause does not always work. The second and more deﬁnite cause of the structuralchange is that because a strong environmental policy reduces the private returns fromadopting primitive technologies, workers are induced to invest in human capital andadopt cleaner technologies even at lower income levels. This can be conﬁrmed by thefact that the threshold levels of income for education, y and y in equation (7), become
smaller when Ap falls.14 Obviously, such a policy temporarily reduces the income ofpoor households (given that the environmental quality does not change instantly). As
time passes, however, the environment improves gradually, which increases productivity
and income. Once the income level passes a threshold level (speciﬁcally, when yt andPt pair falls below the saddle path in Figure 8), workers are now willing to invest in
human capital and cleaner technologies even without further policy interventions, andthe economy autonomously improves toward the better steady state.
To summarize, once an economy falls into the poverty-environment trap, it is difﬁcult to build a consensus on environmental policies because such policies are likely
to worsen income and welfare, at least temporarily. In addition, when the policy intervention is insuﬃcient, poverty can be aggravated even in the long run. However,
14

Recall that σ ≡ (1/2)βϕ(As (1 − θ)/Ap )1/θ , y ≡ (1 − θ)/2σθ and y ≡ (1 + θ)/2σθ.

20

the situation can be solved permanently if a suﬃciently strong environmental policy
is continued for a certain period until the economy reaches the autonomous process of
economic growth and environmental improvements. Given the short-term cost of sucha drastic intervention, assistance from developed economies (e.g., by providing funds
for the abatement cost, subsidies for education, or income assistance for households
whose earnings are adversely aﬀected by environmental policies) will certainly be a key
in helping economies escape from the poverty-environment trap, thereby reducing thewide international inequality both in incomes and environmental quality.15

4

Sustainability of long-term growth under global

warming
In the previous section, we examined the problems of large international diﬀerences inincome and environmental quality. We showed the possibility that the interaction between the environment and growth within each country creates a poverty-environment
trap and that this mechanism can explain the long-lasting international inequality interms of both environmental quality and income. Now, let us turn to the growth of theworld economy as a whole and examine how can it be harmonized with the global environment, particularly regarding the problem of global warming. As we have discussed
in the latter half of Section 2, the growing world economy emits increasing amounts ofglobal warming gases, which is suspected to intensify the risk of natural disasters. The
aggregate economic damage from natural disasters, which mostly takes the form of thedestruction of capital stocks, has been increasing at a speed faster than the growth of
the world GDP (see Figure 5). If this trend continues, the risk of losing the capitalstock will sooner or later exceed a threshold at which the economy does not want toinvest further in capital stock. This is the “limits to growth” for the world economy(see path f in Figure 6). Can any environmental policy prevent such a situation fromoccurring and sustain long-term growth? Based on a simpliﬁed version of the endogenous growth model by Ikefuji and Horii (2012), this section presents a formal model ofemissions, natural disasters, and the “limits to growth.”

15

Ikefuji and Horii (2007) also examined the eﬀect of income redistributive policies within the economy.

It is found that at the initial stage of development, a smaller redistribution might help economies escape
the poverty-environment trap, while in developed countries a larger redistribution will contribute toward abetter environment.

21

4.1

A model with global pollution and capital destruction

While the previous section considered only human capital, in this section, we consider
explicitly the accumulation of physical and human capital. Note that the damage fromnatural disasters occurs most strikingly in the form of capital destruction. In addition,
natural disasters entail many human casualties and therefore destroy a substantial
amount of skills and knowledge (i.e., human capital). A knowledge based economy
with a large stock of human capital can be vulnerable to natural disasters once its
telecommunication network is damaged. Therefore, it is appropriate to develop a model
where the economy accumulates both physical and human capital and where both are
subject to the risk of natural disasters. This speciﬁcation also allows us to examine theproperties of long-term economic growth, rather than one-time transitional dynamics
from a poor to a rich economy.16
However, considering two types of capital simultaneously makes the analysis substantially complex. Therefore, we make several innocuous simpliﬁcations. First, rather
than explicitly considering diﬀerent generations (youth and adults, as in the previous section), let us consider a representative household and assume that they divide
their human capital (or their disposable time) between production (fraction ut ) andeducation (1 − ut ). In addition, rather than considering the choice between the twotechnologies, we suppose that production always uses fossil fuels Pt that cause the emission of greenhouse gases of the same amount Pt , but that it is possible to adjust theamount of such an input in the production process. The output of the world economy
is then given by a constant-returns-to-scale production function:
Yt = AKtα (ut Ht )1−α−β Ptβ ,(12)where Kt and Ht are the aggregate amounts of physical and human capital, respectively. It is possible to interpret that the primitive technology in the previous section
corresponds to the situation where the economy uses a large amount of Pt while making little use of Ht . Sustainable technology corresponds to the opposite combination.
Because this section’s objective to examine how the economy’s reliance on fossil fuels
Pt limits the possibility of sustained growth through global warming and increased riskof natural disasters, we do not explicitly consider the ﬁniteness of such resources.17

16

While classical growth models requires exogenous technological change to explain long-term growth, theliterature on endogenous growth (with a seminal study by Lucas 1988) has shown that long-term growth canbe explained within a model if we consider both physical and human capital accumulations simultaneously.
17

See the previous footnote 1 for the relationship between the ﬁniteness of resources and the problem ofpollution.

22

We also simplify the process of education. When the representative household
uses amount (1 − ut )Ht of their human capital for education, it produces additional
B(1 − ut )Ht units of new human capital, where B is a constant parameter for theeﬃciency of education (see equation 14 below).
In the model of the previous section, we assumed that local pollution reduces the
productivity (ability) of agents. Instead, we now assume that global pollution (i.e.,
the emission of greenhouse gases) raises the risk of capital stock destruction. Supposethat when the world economy emits amount Pt of greenhouse gases, then, on average,a fraction ϕPt of physical capital is destroyed by natural disasters within a year.18
Natural disasters will also erode a fraction ψPt of human capital, where we assume
0 < ψ < ϕ.19 Then, the aggregate amounts of physical and human capital evolve
according toK̇t= Yt − Ct − (δK + ϕPt )Kt ,

(13)

Ḣt

= B(1 − ut )Ht − (δH + ψPt )Ht ,(14)

where δK and δH are depreciation rates of physical and human capital, respectively,
excluding the eﬀect of global warming. Because we are concerned about long-term
growth rather than short term ﬂuctuations caused by individual events of natural
disasters, we simply assume that the whole economy consists of many regions, and, by
the law of large numbers, there is no aggregate uncertainty on the aggregate damage ineach year. In this setting, the use of fossil fuels Pt in eﬀect accelerates the depreciationof capital through the larger damages caused by natural disasters.
The representative household has the standard CRRA utility function:∫ ∞ 1−θ
C− 1 −ρt
e dt.
1
−
θ
0

(15)

Let us consider a market economy where the authorities levy a per-unit tax of τ > 0
on the use of fossil fuels Pt (or, equivalently, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions).
Here, we abstract from the international politics and assume that the whole economy(i.e., the world’s economy) can set a common rate of environmental tax.20 Suppose
the markets are perfectly competitive and there is a representative ﬁrm that produces18

For simplicity, we do not explicitly consider the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Ikefuji and Horii (2012) show that the basic property of the result is the same when we explicitly consider
the accumulation process.
19

While human and physical capital are vulnerable to natural disasters, it is reasonable to think thatphysical capital suﬀers more directly from natural disasters and, therefore, that the damage fraction ofphysical capital ϕPt would be larger than that for human capital ψPt .
20

Of course, this is a mere abstraction. Among countries that diﬀer in many aspects, such as income

23

output Yt according to (12). Let the price of the output be normalized to one, andassume that there are no other costs of using Pt other than the environmental tax τ .21
Then, the ﬁrst order condition for the proﬁt maximization implies
Pt = βYt /τ.

(16)

Equation (16) clearly shows that the emission of greenhouse gases Pt increases
proportionally with the world’s GDP, Yt , if there is no strengthening of environmental
policy τ . At the same time, this equation shows that emission Pt can be reduced if theenvironmental tax rate τ is raised, conﬁrming the discussion in section 2. However,this does not come without a cost. By substituting (16) into production function (12),we see that output can be expressed as()βα
Yt = Ãτ − 1−β Ktαb (ut Ht )1−b,(17)

where Ã ≡ β β/(1−β) A1/(1−β) and αb ≡ α/(1 − β). Equation (17) can be interpreted as
the aggregate production function given the level of environmental tax τ . It has theform of a standard Cobb-Douglas function with two inputs, Kt and ut Ht , and its totalfactor productivity (TFP) is given by Ãτ −β/(1−β) . This expression clearly shows that,given the current amounts of physical and human capital, the environmental tax lowers
the productivity.

4.2“Limits to growth” under constant tax rate

We ﬁrst show that if the environmental tax rate τ is kept constant, the interacting
processes of economic growth and environmental degradation eventually lead to the“Limits to growth.”
In this economy, the only source of externality is Pt , which represents the use offossil fuels and, hence, the accompanying emission of greenhouse gases. Other than
this aspect, the conditions for the market equilibrium with the representative household
and the representative ﬁrm coincide with the conditions for the welfare maximization
problem.22 The problem is to maximize the utility (15) subject to the productionlevels and geography, it is not easy to agree on a common standard for greenhouse gas emissions, and it
will be even more diﬃcult to strengthen it over time. As we will see, such conﬂicts in international politics
will create a threat to the sustainability of the world’s economic growth.
21

In the present setting, we assume that the tax revenue is returned to the household in a lump sum

fashion. With a minor modiﬁcation of the model, it is possible to interpret that τ includes other costs ofusing fossil fuels, such as extraction costs. In this case, only the remaining fraction of τ will be returned tohouseholds.
22

Aside from the use of fossil fuels and the resulting global warming, our model framework is similar to24

function (12) and the resource constraints (13) and (14), where we take the evolutionof Pt in (16) as given. By setting up a Hamiltonian, we obtain the following ﬁrst orderconditions for this problem, which should also hold in the market equilibrium:
[(
)
]
Ċt
1
Yt
=
α
− δK − ϕPt − ρ ,
Ct
θ
Kt
(
)
˙
Ḣt
u˙t
Yt
Yt
+
−
= (B − δH − ψPt ) − α− δK − ϕPt .
Ht
ut
Yt
Kt

(18)
(19)

Equation (18) is the Euler equation for the intertemporal consumption. Note thatthe term (αYt /Kt − δK − ϕPt ) in the right-hand side (RHS) represents the (expected)
rate of return from physical capital investment, i.e., the marginal product of capital
αYt /Kt minus the depreciation rate δK minus the expected loss from natural disasters
ϕPt . Recall from (16) that if the environmental tax rate τ is constant and the economic
growth continues (Ẏt > 0), the representative ﬁrm uses an ever increasing amount offossil fuels Pt . The resulting increase in the risk of natural disasters lowers the rateof return from physical capital investment (αYt /Kt − δK − ϕPt ). Equation (18) showsthat economic growth can be sustained (Ċt /Ct > 0) only when the rate of returnfrom physical capital investment is kept above the rate of time preference, ρ. For thiscondition to hold along economic growth, the continual rise in the expected damage
ϕPt must be oﬀset by an increase in the marginal product of physical capital αYt /Kt .
Will such an increase in αYt /Kt actually occur? Note that under production function (17) the marginal product of physical capital αYt /Kt rises when the economy uses
more human capital ut Ht relative to the amount of output Yt . The rate of change inthis ratio, ut Ht /Yt , is represented by the left-hand side (LHS) of equation (19). The
ﬁrst term in the RHS, (B − δH − ψPt ), represents the rate of return from investing inhuman capital. The second term is the rate of return from physical capital investment,
as explained above. Therefore, equation (19) shows that the household uses more human capital in production if the rate of return from human capital investment is higher
than that from physical capital investment.
As the amount of emission Pt increases in the RHS of (19), the rate of return for
physical capital falls more rapidly than that for human capital (recall that ϕ > ψ),and therefore, the economy increases its reliance on human capital. This is consistent with the empirical ﬁndings of Skidmore and Toya (2002), who suggested thata higher frequency of climatic disasters leads to a substitution from physical capital
investment toward human capital. This substitution process actually increases theLucas (1988), whereit is well known that the market equilibrium coincides with the welfare maximization
problem because there is no externality. For details regarding deriving the market equilibrium and thewelfare maximization solution, see the online appendix of Ikefuji and Horii (2012).

25

P greenhousegas emissions

A

^

lo
w
τ

P
initialstatus

in
B

.

C

Y=0

teτ
dia
e
m
ter

high

τ

(Limits to Growth)DYworld’s income
Figure 11: Evolution of the global environment and the world’s income under diﬀerent
environmental tax rates.

marginal product of physical capital αYt /Kt , which encourages growth. However, thisprocess cannot perpetually sustain economic growth under a constant tax rate. As
we discussed, Euler equation (18) implies that nonnegative growth in consumption requires the rate of return from physical capital (αYt /Kt − δK − ϕPt ) to be at least ρ.
However, as Pt = βYt /τ rises with economic growth, the rate of return from humancapital investment (B − δH − ψPt ) will eventually fall to ρ. This means that the RHSof (19) becomes zero (or negative), and substitution from physical capital to humancapital stops. This means that αYt /Kt cannot rise further, and therefore, the rateof return from physical capital investment (αYt /Kt − δK − ϕPt ) must eventually fall
until it reaches the rate of time preference ρ. At this point, people are unwilling toinvest further in physical capital to increase their consumption, and economic growthcomes to an end.
By setting time derivatives to zero in equations (18) and (19), we ﬁnd that thissteady state, or the “limits to growth,” is reached when the amount of emissions
increases up toB − δH − ρ
.
Pb =
ψ

(20)

Figure 11 illustrates the processes of economic growth in (Y, P ) space for three
diﬀerent environmental tax rates. These three paths start from the same level ofcapital accumulation. However, as we have shown in equation (17), the initial amountof production (income) Yt varies negatively with the environmental tax rate because

26the higher tax rate reduces the eﬀective TFP. When the tax rate is higher, the initiallevel of emission Pt = βYt /τ is also lower due to both higher τ and lower initial Yt .
As the economy grows, the amount of emission Pt increases proportionally with
output Yt . Observe from the ﬁgure that the slope of the path, Pt /Yt = β/τ , is lesssteep when the tax rate is higher. This means that the level of income at which theeconomy reaches the “limits to growth” (i.e., when Pt reaches Pb) is proportionallyrelated to the environmental tax rate:τ(B − δH − ρ).
Yb =
βψ

(21)

Therefore, although a higher environmental tax initially corresponds to a lower output,
it also implies there remains larger room for economic growth.
While Figure 11 illustrates the existence of the limits to growth of the world economy under a constant environmental tax rate, it also suggests that economic growth
can be maintained if the environmental tax rate is continually raised. Whenever theworld economy reaches the limit of growth, it is possible to bring the economy to aless steep path of growth that leads to a higher long-term level of output, although
output temporarily falls (e.g., from point A to point B, or from point C to point D in
Figure 11). It might be even better to raise the environmental tax before the emission Pt reaches Pb because doing so will allow the possibility of keeping the rates ofreturn from physical and human capital investment higher, thereby encouraging faster
capital accumulation. However, it is not always better to raise the environmental tax
faster because it lowers the eﬀective productivity of production. In the next subsection, we examine the desirable environmental tax policy both in terms of the long-term
economic growth rate and in terms of welfare.
Before leaving this subsection, let us explain the diﬀerence between Figure 6 andFigure 11. While we discussed in Section 2 that the Ẏ = 0 locus would appear to
be downward sloping (see Figure 6), the Ẏ = 0 locus we derived so far (Figure 11)
is actually horizontal because Pb = (B − δH − ρ)/ψ does not depend on the income
level Yt . This result is due to several simpliﬁcations. In particular, we simply assumed
that δH and ψ do not change with the income level or the level of human capital.
At the initial stage of economic growth, however, when production relied more on
basic labor than advanced human capital, we may interpret that δH and ψ must havebeen smaller. As the economy develops and the aggregate human capital accumulates(i.e., the development of complex systems of skill, knowledge and information in theworld economy), the depreciation or the obsolescence of existing human capital will
accelerate (i.e., δH increases). In addition, as the system of human capital becomes
more complex, it might become more vulnerable to natural disasters (i.e., ψ rises). If

27

we incorporate these changes into the model, the Ẏ = 0 locus (Pb = (B − δH − ρ)/ψ)will become downward sloping, as depicted in Figure 6.
Note, however, that if we do not expect δH and ψ to rise indeﬁnitely, they will
converge to certain constants in the very long run. Because this section examines
the long-run consequences of the interaction between the environment and economic
growth, we consider the situation where economic development has already suﬃciently
advanced so that δH and ψ can be seen as constants. In Figure 6, this corresponds
to the region where Yt is suﬃciently large that the Ẏ = 0 comes close to the dashedhorizontal line at Pt = Pb.

4.3

Environmental policy and sustained growth

In the previous subsection, we conﬁrmed that economic growth can be sustained only
when the environmental tax rate is continually raised. Now let us deﬁne the rate oftax increase gτ ≡ τ̇t /τt and examine how it determines the long-term rate of economic
growth g ∗ ≡ Ẏt /Yt .23
The long-term rate of economic growth g ∗ cannot be higher than the rate of tax
increase, gτ , because otherwise Pt = βYt /τt would continue to increase and eventually
face the “limits to growth,” Pb. Therefore, sustained growth (g ∗ > 0) requires a positive
rate of environmental tax increase. Under such a policy, there are two possible outcomesin the state of the environment. If the long-term economic growth occurs at thesame rate as the tax increase (i.e., g ∗ = gτ ), then the growth rate of Pt = βYt /τtwill become zero, and therefore, the amount of emissions will converge to a constant,which we denote by P ∗ . Another possibility is that output grows slower than the tax
rate (g ∗ < gτ ). In such a scenario, the amount of emission Pt = βYt /τt falls at therate of gP = g ∗ − gτ < 0 and will converge toward zero. That is, the emissions are
asymptotically eliminated in the long run; P ∗ = 0.
In either case, the amount of emissions and, hence, the risk of natural disasters
converge to a constant level. This by itself should be good for economic growth.
However, when the tax rate τ is continually increased, is it possible to maintain output
growth, given that a higher τ reduces the eﬀective productivity? Calculating the rates
of change on both sides of equation (17), we ﬁnd that the growth rate of human capitalgH ≡ Ḣt /Ht should be higher than the output growth so that it oﬀsets the eﬀective

23

Strictly speaking, because we are interested in the long-term rate of economic growth, not the growthrate in the transition, the precise deﬁnition of g ∗ should be ≡ limt→∞ Ẏt /Yt , and it should be called theasymptotic rate of economic growth. Similar remarks can be applied to growth rates of other variables,such as gτ .

28

productivity loss caused by gτ > 0.24
β
gτ .
1−α−β

gH = g ∗ +(22)Note that (22) means Ht /Yt increases over time, whereas the constancy of P ∗ implies
Pt /Yt will fall. Equation (22) can also be understood in such a way that the environmental tax policy induces the substitution from fossil fuels to human capital in the
production process. In other words, the policy encourages the shift toward a knowledge oriented production process rather than heavily relying on natural resources. In
a broader sense, this can be interpreted as a process of technological shift, as in themodel of Section 3.25
Using the above properties in equations (13), (14), (16), (18) and (19), we obtain
the asymptotic value of emission P ∗ and the long-term growth rate g ∗ as a functionof environmental policy gτ . The result is summarized in Figure 12, which also depicts
gH from (22) and gP = g ∗ − gτ . Let us ﬁrst explain the case in which the rate of tax
increase gτ does not exceed a threshold of
g

max

(
≡ θ+

β
1−α−β

)−1
(B − δH − ρ).

(23)

When the tax policy is within the range of gτ ≤ g max , we ﬁnd that the output of theeconomy can grow at the same speed as the tax increase, i.e., g ∗ = gτ . In this case,
Pt = βYt /τt converges to a positive constant
P∗ =

(
) ]
1[
β
B − δH − ρ − θ +
gτ ,
ψ
1−α−β

(24)

which is decreasing in gτ . This means that by raising the tax rate faster it is possible toreduce the long-term level of emissions and, hence, the risk of natural disasters. The
lower risk of natural disasters encourages the economy to accumulate more capital,
thereby enabling faster economic growth. Thus, g ∗ increases with gτ .
24

To derive (22), we use K̇t /Kt = Ẏt /Yt ≡ g ∗ and u̇t /ut = 0, which is justiﬁed as follows. Observefrom Euler equation (18) that steady-state growth (constant growth of Ct ) occurs only when Kt /Yt is
asymptotically constant. Therefore, the growth rate of Kt should be the same as that of the output, g ∗ .
Note also that u̇t /ut > 0 is not possible because it has an upper bound of 1, whereas u̇t /ut < 0 violates
the transversality condition.
25

While we simplify the process of the technological change by focusing only on the relative use of humancapital and the polluting input, a number of studies explicitly examine the determinant of technologicalchange and how it is aﬀected by environmental policies: see, for example, Gradus and Smulders (1993),
Bovenberg and Smulders (1995), Groth and Schou (2002), Grimaud and Rougé (2003), Smulders and de
Nooij (2003), Hart (2004), and Ricci (2007). Recent studies, such as Di Maria and Valente (2008), Pittel
and Bretschger (2010), and Acemoglu et al. (2012), also examine the direction of technological change.

29

ital

ap
f human c
o
te
a
r
th
grow

gH
g ¤ growth r

gmax

ate of outputg¿rate oftax increasegP
the rate of change in emission

^
P

0

P¤
asymptotic level of emission

g

max

g

lim

g¿

Figure 12: Rates of changes in output, human capital, and emissions (above) and theasymptotic value of emissions (below) as a function of the rate of environmental tax increase.

Figure 13 depicts the growth paths of the economy in (P, Y ) space under diﬀerent
tax policies. Suppose that thus far the tax rate on fossil fuels (or, more generally,
the user cost of pollution-generating inputs) has been constant and that Pt and Yt
have increased proportionally to the current status of (P0 , Y0 ). As we have seen in
the previous subsection, the economy will face the “limits to growth” if the tax rate is
kept constant (path a). However, if the tax rate is continually raised at an appropriate
speed, the economy can overcome this limit. Path b depicts the evolution of theeconomy when the tax rate is raised gradually, but the rate of tax increase τ̇t /τt issmall. Under such an environmental tax policy, the amount of emission Pt can be kept
below the threshold Pb but will come close to it. Then, the long-term rate of economic
growth g ∗ is positive, but not large (see Figure 12). Note that when the speed ofincrease in τt is positive but less than an exponential increase, τ̇t /τt will fall to zero as
the denominator τt increases. In such a case, the economy will grow similarly to pathb, but in the limit the long-term rate of growth g ∗ ≡ Ẏt /Yt will fall to zero. This is anatural result because Yt cannot grow more than proportionally with τt , and hence, if
τt is not raised at an exponential rate, an exponential growth of Yt (i.e., g ∗ > 0) is notpossible either.
If the environmental tax rate is raised at a faster rate, the long-term level of emissions can be reduced to a lower level, as shown by path c. (See also equation 24 and30

P greenhousegas emissions^
Pa. g¿ = 0.

Y=0 (Limits to Growth)b. g¿ > 0 (small)or non-exponential tax increse

current
status(P0 ; Y0 )c. 0 < g¿ < gmax

co
n

sta
nt

tax
ra
te

shape of EKC

f. g¿ = glime. gmax <g¿ < glim

d. g¿ = g max
fastest growth pathworld’s income Y
Figure 13: Environmental tax policy and the future evolutions of income and environmental
quality

Figure 12). The long-term rate of growth, then, is higher than that in Path a because
the environmental tax rate is raised at a faster rate and the output grows at the samerate. The fastest rate of long-term growth can be obtained when τt is raised at exactly
the rate of g max in (23). This environmental tax policy achieves asymptotically zero
emissions in the long-run. This does not mean Pt becomes 0 at some date t, which
is not possible because the production function (12) always requires a positive inputof Pt . However, it is possible to reduce Pt toward zero while using increasingly morehuman capital Ht over time. With the risk of natural disasters falling to the minimum
level, the economy is encouraged to accumulate physical and human capital at thefastest speed. In this sense, such an environmental policy perfectly harmonizes the
maximization of economic growth with environmental improvements in the long run.
Note also that under a policy such that the long-term level of emission P ∗ is lower
than the current level of emission, P0 , we will observe the EKC in the future. Therefore, in the case of greenhouse gas emissions, the EKC does not emerge automatically
but will only be realized when the world economy agrees on setting suﬃciently strict
environmental policies that enable faster long-term economic growth. In other words,
following the EKC is a requirement for achieving a high rate of economic growth in thelong run.
What will happen if the world economy decides to adopt a stricter environmental
policy? If gτ > g max , the negative eﬀect of tax on the productivity dominates, and the31economy cannot grow at the same speed as the tax increase (g ∗ < gτ ). Speciﬁcally,
the long-term rate of growth becomes a decreasing function of gτ ,
g∗ =

)
1(
β
B − δH − ρ −
gτ .
θ
1−α−β

(25)

The emission Pt falls to zero (P ∗ = 0) at the rate of gP = g ∗ −gτ (see Figure 12), whichbecomes more negative when gτ is larger. Therefore, as depicted by path e in Figure 13,
when the environmental tax rate is raised too quickly (gτ > g max ), the emissions canbe reduced at a faster rate but at the cost of a slower long-term rate of growth. Path fshows that the extremely strict environmental policy actually chokes economic growth,which occurs when the rate of tax increase is raised to g lim ≡ (1−α−β)β −1 (B−δH −ρ).

4.4

Welfare-maximizing environmental policy for global warm-ing
We have seen that an appropriate environmental policy can both maximize the longterm rate growth and reduce emissions toward zero. This particular policy (gτ =g max ) can be characterized as the mildest environmental tax policy among those thatasymptotically achieve zero emissions.26 Note that this is still a strict environmental
policy in the sense of reducing emissions toward zero, and such a policy incurs asubstantial cost in terms of productivity loss in the short run, as we have seen in
Subsection 4.2. While this policy can minimize the risk of natural disasters, is it
desirable in terms of welfare?
Thus far, we have considered the equilibrium in the market economy. As we mentioned, in this economy the only diﬀerence between the welfare maximization problem
and the market economy is the determination of the amount of emission (or, equivalently, the use of fossil fuels) Pt . In the market economy, the amount of emissions isdetermined as Pt = βYt /τt by (16). In the welfare maximization problem, the social
cost of using Pt , including the negative externality from a higher risk of natural disasters, should be determined such that it is equalized to the social beneﬁt of using fossil
fuels, i.e., the marginal product of using fossil fuels. This condition can be written as
ϕKt + ψHt

(1 − α − β)Yt
βYt=,
But HtPt(26)

Note that ϕKt and ψHt represent the marginal increases in the damages to physicaland human capital due to a marginal increase in Pt , while βYt /Pt is the marginal26

We can conﬁrm that when gτ = g max while Pt falls to P ∗ = 0, the asymptotic rate of reduction Ṗt /Pt

is g ∗ − gτ = 0. This means that Pt converges to zero at a less than exponential speed. If gτ < g max ,Pt converges to a positive constant P ∗ > 0, whereas if gτ > g max , Pt falls to 0 at an exponential rate ofg ∗ − gτ < 0.

32

P ¤ long term levelof emission

Actual P ¤under tax policyP

Optimal P ¤given K/Y and u

g¿opt

g¿
0

g

max

rate of tax increase

Figure 14: Welfare-maximizing environmental tax policy

product of Pt . The fraction (1 − α − β)Yt /But Ht represents the value (shadow price)of human capital relative to output.
Condition (26) can be solved for the amount of emissions as:(

Kt(1 − α − β)Pt = β ϕ
+ψ
Yt
But

)−1
.

(27)

Figure 14 illustrates the determination of the welfare-maximizing tax policy. Once gτ
is given, the capital output ratio Kt /Yt and the fraction of human capital used for
production ut becomes constant in the long run. Therefore, equation (27) implies that
it is optimal to keep emission Pt at a positive constant value in the long run. On
the other hand, the actual amount of emissions under environmental tax policy gτ isdetermined as in Figure 12, where its long-term value is positive only when the rate oftax increase gτ is slower than g max . The welfare-maximizing rate of the tax increase,gτopt , is determined so that the above two coincide with each other. Observe that in
our model framework it is neither necessary nor desirable to pursue zero emissions
even in the long-run. As a result, if welfare is the main concern, we should adopt a
milder environmental policy than when long-term economic growth is the ﬁrst priority.
In other words, growth maximization is achieved when the world economy adopts astricter policy to improve the environment than is actually desired by the generalpublic.
This result might be contrary to the common perception that there is a tradeoﬀ
between growth and environmental conservation. Because the welfare-maximizing environmental tax policy falls within the range of gτ < g max , it is quite unlikely thatinternational politicians will agree on a tax policy that is stricter than g max , which
is neither desirable in terms of growth or of welfare. Therefore, for the purpose ofpolicy comparison, it will be suﬃcient to consider the tax policy within the range of33

gτ < g max . Then, the presented model of the global environment clearly shows that
although there is a short term trade-oﬀ between the environment and income, in thelong run the environment and growth are positively linked. An acceleration in the rateof tax increase simultaneously improves the long-term level of emissions and economic
growth. Of course, adopting too fast a tax increase (g ∗ > g max ) will be harmful bothfor growth and welfare and will not improve the long-term quality of the environment(P ∗ = 0). However, it will be safe to rule out such a possibility given that the global
environmental policy must be agreed upon by the majority of countries.

5

Conclusion

In this paper, we have discussed the implications of the mutual causality between environmental quality and growth. If the economy simply expands the scale of production,
it will cause increasing amounts of pollution, which will deteriorate the environment.
The environmental degradation in turn harms economic growth in various ways. Local
pollution (such as air pollution), for example, adversely aﬀects the health of workers
and, hence, the productivity of the economy. Global pollution, particularly in thecase of global warming, will destabilize the climate and raise the risk of natural disasters. When such negative eﬀects become too large, the economy is no longer able toaccumulate physical and human capital, which we call “limits to growth.”
This mutual link creates serious problems, both at the level of individual countries
and at the level of the global economy. We have shown the possibility that in theleast developed countries (LDCs), poverty and environmental degradation reinforce
each other, creating the “poverty-environment trap,” in which people cannot aﬀord
to obtain adequate education and therefore have to rely on dirty technologies thatcause further pollution. The existence of such a trap can be a cause of long-lasting
international inequality both in terms of income level and environmental quality. The
growth potential of the global economy is also limited by this mutual link if greenhousegas emissions increase proportionally with the world’s output.
The key to overcoming the “limits to growth” is technological change, or the transition from “dirty” to “cleaner” inputs, which enables the production of outputs withless pollution. In fact, the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) is observed for some
air pollutants, which means that while the intensity of pollution increases with income for some range, once the income level exceeds a threshold value the pollution
declines with income. It seems that developed countries have mostly already exceeded
the threshold level of income and, thus, have achieved better environmental quality
along with higher income. However, this situation does not hold for every economy. It

34

appears that the least developed countries and some developing countries are trapped
before they exceed the threshold income. In such a case, the authorities need to adopt
appropriate policies to encourage technological change, such as taxing dirty technologies. Such policies will help them escape the poverty-environment trap and achieve
better environmental quality in the long run.
In the case of global pollution, the emission of greenhouse gases is still increasingalong with the world’s increasing output, and thus far there is no sign that it follows
the EKC. Our theory suggests that emissions will increase proportionally with output
if the environmental policy is unchanged. Therefore, to make the world’s economic
growth sustainable, it is necessary to strengthen environmental policies over time so
producers will rely less on pollution generating output (e.g., fossil fuels) and moreon new technologies, skills and knowledge (i.e., human capital). If such a policy is
successful at achieving a high rate of long-term growth, we will observe the EKC forgreenhouse gases in the future.
For both local and global environmental issues, we have shown that the appropriate environmental policy improves both the environmental quality and income levelby altering the mutual causality between the environment and growth that leads tothe “limits to growth” if there is no such policy. Therefore, although it may appear
counterintuitive, economic growth and the environment are not subject to trade-oﬀs
in the long run. However, there are short term costs of environmental conservationthat must be incurred by the economy. Banning dirty primitive technologies in LDCs
will certainly lower their income, which is already quite low, in the short run. This
creates a signiﬁcant hurdle for such countries to adopt stronger environmental policies
that are necessary to escape from the poverty-environment trap. The same can be saidof the global economy. Raising the environmental tax rate will reduce the eﬀective
productivity of aggregate production, which will lower the growth rate for some time.
However, such a cost is necessary to sustain economic growth in the long run. Still,this temporary adverse eﬀect on the world economy makes it diﬃcult for international
authorities to agree on strengthening environmental policy at a suﬃciently fast rate.
Overcoming this political situation is not easy, and is clearly beyond the scope of thispaper, but a correct understanding of the long-term positive relationship between environmental quality and growth, as examined in this paper, will certainly facilitate
international cooperation for environmental conservation.

35

References
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., Hemous, D., 2012. The environment anddirected technical change, American Economic Review 102, 131–166.
Andreoni, J., Levinson, A., 2001. The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets
curve, Journal of Public Economics 80, 269–286.
Bolt, J., van Zanden, J.L., 2013. The ﬁrst update of the Maddison Project; reestimating growth before 1820. Maddison Project Working Paper 4.
Bovenberg, A.L., Smulders, S., 1995. Environmental quality and pollutionaugmenting technological change in a two-sector endogenous growth model, Journalof Public Economics 57, 369–391.
Brock, W.A., Taylor, M.S., 2005. Economic growth and the environment: a reviewof theory and empirics, In: Aghion, P., Durlauf, S.N. (Eds.), Handbook of Economic
Growth, vol. 1B. North Holland, 1749–1821 (Chapter 28).
Dasgupta, P., Heal, G., 1974. The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources, Review
of Economic Studies 41, 3–28.
Di Maria, C., Valente, S., 2008. Hicks meets Hotelling: the direction of technicalchange in capital-resource economies, Environmental and Development Economics
13, 691–717.
Dinda, S., 2004. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey, Ecological Economics 49, 431–455.
Gradus, A., Smulders, S., 1993. The trade-oﬀ between environmental care and longterm growth-pollution in three prototype growth models, Journal of Economics 58,
25–51.
Grimaud, A., Rougé, L., 2003. Non-renewable resources and growth with verticalinnovations: optimum, equilibrium and economic policies, Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 45, 433–453.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1991. Environmental impacts of a North American
Free Trade Agreement, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 3914,
NBER, Cambridge, MA.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic growth and the environment, Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 353–377.
Groth, C., Schou, P., 2002. Growth and non-renewable resources: the diﬀerent rolesof capital and resource taxes, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
53, 80–98.
Hart, R., 2004. Growth, environment and innovation—a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research, Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 48, 1078–1098.
Ikefuji, M., Horii, R., 2007. Wealth heterogeneity and escape from the povertyenvironment trap, Journal of Public Economic Theory 9, 1041–1068.

36

Ikefuji, M., Horii, R., 2012. Natural disasters in a two-sector model of endogenous
growth, Journal of Public Economics 96, 784–796.
John, A., Pecchenino, R., 1994. An overlapping generations model of growth and theenvironment, Economic Journal 104, 1393–1410.
Kijima, M., Nishide, K., Ohyama, A., 2010. Economic models for the environmental
Kuznets curve: a survey, Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control 34, 1187–1201.
Krautkraemer, J.A., 1998. Nonrenewable resource scarcity, Journal of Economic Literature 36, 2065–2107.
Lieb, C.M., 2002. The environmental Kuznets curve and satiation: a simple static
model, Environment and Development Economics 7, 429–448.
Lieb, C.M., 2004. The environmental Kuznets curve and ﬂow versus stock pollution:
the neglect of future damages, Environmental & Resource Economics 29, 483–506.
Lucas, R.E.JR., 1988. On the mechanics of economic development, Journal of Monetary Economics 22, 3–42.
McConnell, K.E., 1997. Income and the demand for environmental quality, Environment and Development Economics 2, 383–399.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W.W.III, 1972. The Limits
to Growth. Universe Books, New York.
Pittel, K., Bretschger, L., 2010. The implications of heterogeneous resource intensities
on technical change and growth, Canadian Journal of Economics, 43, 1173–1197.
Rebelo, S., 1991. Long-run policy analysis and long-run growth, Journal of Political
Economy 99, 500–521.
Ricci, F., 2007. Environmental policy and growth when inputs are diﬀerentiated inpollution intensity, Environmental and Resource Economics 38, 285–310.
Selden, T.M., Song, D., 1995. Neoclassical growth, the J curve for abatement, and theinverted U curve for pollution, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management29, 162–168.
Skidmore, M., Toya, H., 2002. Do natural disasters promote long-run growth? Economic Inquiry 40, 664–687.
Smith, V.L., 1974. General equilibrium with a replenishable natural resource, Review
of Economic Studies 41, 105–115.
Smulders, S., de Nooij, M., 2003. The impact of energy conservation on technology
and economic growth, Resource and Energy Economics 25, 59–79.
Stiglitz, J., 1974. Growth with exhaustible natural resources: eﬃcient and optimal
growth paths, Review of Economic Studies 41, 123–137.
Stokey, N.L., 1998. Are there limits to growth? International Economic Review 39,
1–31.
World Bank, 1992. World Development Report. Oxford University Press, New York.
World Health Organization (2006). Air quality guidelines. global update 2005, WHO
Regional Oﬃce for Europe, Copenhagen.

37