Is Green Growth Good for the Poor?
The developing world is experiencing substantial environmental change, and climate change is likely to accelerate these processes in the coming decades. Due to their initial poverty, and their relatively high dependence on environmental capital for...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
Language: | English en_US |
Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2013
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/10/16835124/green-growth-good-poor http://hdl.handle.net/10986/12082 |
Summary: | The developing world is experiencing
substantial environmental change, and climate change is
likely to accelerate these processes in the coming decades.
Due to their initial poverty, and their relatively high
dependence on environmental capital for their livelihoods,
the poor are likely to suffer most due to their low
resources for mitigation and investment in adaptation.
Economic growth is essential for any large-scale poverty
reduction. Green growth, a growth process that is sensitive
to environmental and climate change concerns, is often seen
to be particularly helpful in this respect, leading to a
win-win in growth and poverty reduction terms, with
additional gains for the cause of greening the planet and
avoiding further disastrous environmental change. This paper
argues that such a view ignores important trade-offs in the
nature of "green growth" strategies, stemming from
a poor understanding of the sector and spatial processes
behind effective poverty reduction. High labor intensity,
declining shares of agriculture in gross domestic product
and employment, migration, and urbanization are essential
features of poverty-reducing growth. The paper contrasts
some common and stylized green-sensitive growth ideas
related to agriculture, trade, technology, infrastructure,
and urban development with the requirements of
poverty-sensitive growth. It finds that they may well cause
a slow-down in the effectiveness of growth in reducing
poverty. The main lesson therefore is that trade-offs are
bound to exist; they increase the social costs of green
growth and should be explicitly addressed. If not, green
growth may not be good for the poor and the poor should not
be asked to pay the price for sustaining growth while
greening the planet. |
---|