IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_1992_num_258_1_5694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environnement et croissance : un faux dilemme pour les pays en développement

Author

Listed:
  • Laurent Kenigswald

Abstract

[eng] The Environment and Growth : A False Dilemma for Developing Countries . Environmental protection is not just a luxury for rich countries. In poor countries, a minimum of water purification should prevent two million deaths per year. This has also proved to be a source of economic growth due to a better use of agricultural land and natural resources. . Today, the World Bank estimates the cost of a "minimal" ecological programme in the developing countries to be some 80 billion dollars, or 2 % of their GDP, to be spread out over ten years. This cost could be amortized by the resulting growth gains of barely one-quarter of a point per year. Under these circumstances, public environmental aid would not appear to be necessary. However, each development project should be carefully analyzed in terms of its impact on the environment. [fre] Environnement et croissance : un faux dilemme pour les pays en développement . La défense de l'environnement n'est pas qu'un luxe de pays riche. Dans les pays pauvres elle permettrait d'éviter deux millions de décès chaque année, avec un minimum d'assainissement de l'eau. Elle s'avère aussi source de croissance économique, au travers d'une meilleure exploitation des terres agricoles et des ressources naturelles. . Aujourd'hui, le coût d'un programme écologique "minimal" dans les pays en développement est estimé par la Banque Mondiale à quelque 80 milliards de dollars, soit 2 % de leur PIB, à répartir sur dix ans. Il pourrait être amorti par des gains de croissance induite d'à peine un quart de point par an. Une aide publique à l'environnement n'apparaît pas dans ces conditions nécessaire. En revanche, chaque projet de développement doit être soigneusement analysé en termes d'impact sur l'environnement. [spa] Medio ambiente y crecimiento : un falso dilema para los pafses en desarrollo . La protecciôn del medio ambiente no es solo un lujo de pafses ricos. En los pafses pobres esta permitirfa evitar dos millones de muertes por afio, con un minimo de purificacion del agua. Dicha protecciôn se révéla también como una fuente de crecimiento econômico a través de una mejor explotaciôn de las tierras agrfcolas y de los recursos naturales. . Hoy en dfa, el costo de un programa ecolôgico "mfnimo" en los pafses en desarrollo se estima por el Banco Mundial en alrededor de 80 mil millones de dôlares, o sea un 2 % del PIB de estos pafses repartido en diez anos. El mismo podrîa ser amortizado mediante aumentos de crecimiento inducido de apenas un cuarto de punto por afio. En taies condiciones, una ayuda pûblica al medio ambiente no résulta necesaria. Por el contrario, cada proyeeto de desarrollo debe ser cuidadosamente analizado en términos de impacto sobre el medio ambiente.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurent Kenigswald, 1992. "Environnement et croissance : un faux dilemme pour les pays en développement," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 258(1), pages 69-75.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1992_num_258_1_5694
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.1992.5694
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.1992.5694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.1992.5694
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_1992_num_258_1_5694
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.1992.5694?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    2. François Moriconi-Ebrard, 1991. "Les 100 plus grandes villes du monde," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 245(1), pages 7-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Chenguang & Sexton, Richard J., 2009. "Impacts of Retailers’ Pricing Strategies for Produce Commodities on Farmer Welfare," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    4. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    5. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Marieka M. Klawitter & C. Leigh Anderson & Mary Kay Gugerty, 2013. "Savings And Personal Discount Rates In A Matched Savings Program For Low-Income Families," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 468-485, July.
    7. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    8. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    9. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    10. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    12. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    13. Lyman, Nathaniel & Nalley, Lawton Lanier, 2013. "Stochastic Valuation of Hybrid Rice Technology in Arkansas," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142505, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Rasmussen, Svend, 2003. "Criteria for optimal production under uncertainty. The state-contingent approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-30.
    15. Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Minhaj Mahmud & Peter Martinsson, 2009. "Trust and Religion: Experimental Evidence from Rural Bangladesh," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(303), pages 462-485, July.
    16. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    17. Bharat Ramaswami & Shamika Ravi & S.D. Chopra, 2003. "Risk management in agriculture," Discussion Papers 03-08, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    18. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    19. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    20. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_1992_num_258_1_5694. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.