www.ees.uni.opole.pl ISSN paper version 1642-2597 ISSN electronic version 2081-8319 Economic and Environmental Studies Vol. 10, No. 1 (13/2010),23-34, March 2010
Changes in the relations between economic and environmental systems as the result of civilization development – Poland 19882005 Arnold BERNACIAK Poznań University of Economics, Poznań, Poland Abstract: Improving the relationship economy-environment is one of the important objectives of sustainable development. The changes within economy-environment system depend on many factors. One of them is welfare the Environmental Kuznets Curve shows the relations between income growth and environmental pressure. But equally important factor seems to be civilization development. Such elements as science, technological development, education, culture and health may be important factors of improvement of environment-economy relations. The article presents quantitative analysis of changes in the economy-environment system in the context of civilization changes in Poland during the transition period in the years 1988-2005. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Welfare, Civilisation Development, GDP
1. Introduction
The relationship economy-environment is composed of two systems with complicated internal structure and innumerable relations between them. Each system consists of minor elements – subsystems. In case of economy these are enterprises – supplying goods and services to the market, households – acquiring goods and supplying labour resources, and the government – establishing rules for the whole system. The environmental system is composed of a number of subsystems, the most important being: earth surface, geologic resources, water ecosystems, air, organic world, landscape, and climate. Correspondence Address: Arnold Bernaciak, Poznań University of Economics, Department of Spatial and Environmental Economy, Al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland. Email:
[email protected]
© 2010 Opole University
ARNOLD BERNACIAK Relationships between systems are mainly connected with processes of economic utilisation of the environment and activities undertaken in order to protect it. Economy uses the environment to produce goods. All products and services produced in the economic system are made using environmental resources or amenities. The environment is also a receiver of wastes from the economy – it provides space needed for wastes’ accumulation while being able to absorb a certain amount of waste and pollution. Both the economic and environmental systems have a dynamic character. They are changeable in time and space. The economic system is featured by higher flexibility. It reacts to changes occurring in its environment and is able to adapt to them relatively quickly compared to the slower adaptive ability of the environmental system. Improving the relationship economy-environment is an important objective of sustainable development, which is influenced by a number of factors. The most important are ecological policy, technical-technological progress, and changes in public awareness which should shift the whole system towards sustainable development. An important question is what are the source of transformations in these systems. What is a driver of ecological policy, awareness changes, and technical-technological progress? Are these factors stimulated by welfare growth or are they a result of civilization changes? Does an increase in society’s wealth causes the growth in demand for higher-order goods, such as good environmental quality, or do civilization changes shift human attitude towards care for the natural environment? Which one of these two elements underlies changes in economy-environment relationship? This issue will be analysed in the context of civilization and economic changes in Poland in the period 1988-2005.
2. Welfare in the sustainable development concept
The objective of sustainable development idea is proper shaping of relations between economic and environmental systems. It should result in making “development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987: 43).” Basing on this perspective of social and economic development many theories, models and definitions of development have been
24
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS created. Some of them concentrate on pure economic growth, others on technology formation, conservatory nature protection, or on relations between ecological and economic processes. Many authors refer the problem of sustainable development directly to economic processes. Pearce, Markandya and Barbier (1989: 33) assume that sustainable economic development means that GNP per capita growth is not threatened by feedbacks from its natural or social effects. Holmberg (1992: 22) adopts similar reasoning, complementing it with distinguishing between strong and weak sustainability developed by Daly and Cobb (1989: 7273). He states that sustainable development means that utility (welfare) per capita grows over time, with any level of substitution between natural and man-made capital, or that utility (welfare) per capita grows over time, with non-decreasing natural capital. He also gives reasons for supporting the second perspective: •
no substitution among environmental components (e.g., it is impossible to reconstruct ozone layer),
•
uncertainty (decision concerning preserving environmental components for future generations is based on limited understanding of their life support functions),
•
irreversibility (it is impossible to revive extinct species),
•
equity (bad environmental state usually affects the poor more than the rich). Costanza and Wainger (1991: 50-60) refer sustainable development directly to
consumption. They define it as the amount of consumption which can be maintained infinitely without degrading capital resources, including natural capital resources. Similarly, Pearce (1993: 8) argues that sustainable economic development means constantly rising – or at least nondecreasing – consumption per capita. Munn (1989: 50) emphasizes that the term “development” does not necessarily have to be connected to growth. Development may mean that the world, society or biosphere gets “better” in some way, e.g., produces more or satisfies a greater part of basic needs of the poor. This is why the term “sustainable development” itself represents certain valuation. Development might become sustainable through structural changes (economic, political, cultural or ecological) or thanks to a series of technological breakthroughs.
25
ARNOLD BERNACIAK 3. The role of welfare and civilization changes in improving the relationship economyenvironment The relationship between welfare and economic system’s pressures on ecosystems is shown in environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). According to this hypothesis environmental quality, derived from environmental pressures, decreases in early stages of economic development (low level of GDP per capita) and increases in later stages (high level of GDP per capita). Graphically the curve is inverted U-shaped (Fig. 1). According to theoretical assumptions, during the first stage of income growth (economic development) environmental pressures increase faster than GDP (phase 1). Then follows a period in which environmental pressures still increase, but slower than the rate of economic growth (phase 2). After reaching a certain level of income, environmental pressures decrease despite GDP growth (phase 3). At this point de-linking of income growth from environmental pressures occurs. If this trend of de-linking continues, there is further decline of environmental pressures. However, de-linking might not be persistent and might be followed by a period of re-linking (phase 4). The curve is then N-shaped (de Bruyn and Opschoor, 1997). Meanwhile Toffler in his renowned work “The third wave” attributes changes in human attitude towards environment to the clash of the idea of the second wave civilization (industrial era) and the ideas of the third wave civilization of society. He notices that “instead of conceiving ourselves as engaged in a bloody war with nature, we are moving toward a fresh view that emphasizes symbiosis or harmony with the earth.” He adds that the above: “is mirrored in a corresponding shift of popular attitudes toward nature. Whether we examine opinion surveys or the lyrics of pop songs, the visual imagery in advertising or the content of sermons, we find evidence of a heightened, though often romantic, regard for nature.” This attitude becomes a social norm, to the extent that “even the most single-minded pursuers of GNP today pay at least lip service to the idea that nature must be protected, not raped (Toffler, 1997: 440-442).”
Therefore the question is whether the real cause of changes in economy-environment relationship is welfare growth, or rather civilization development and awareness changes related to it.
26
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS Figure 1. Relation between income growth and environmental pressures.
Source: (de Bruyn, Heintz, 1999: 658).
4. Relationships economy-environment in the context of civilization and economic changes in Poland in 1988-2005 An attempt was made to perform quantitative analysis of changes in the economyenvironment system in the context of civilization changes in Poland during the transition period in the years 1988-2005. In order to depict the relationship economy-environment synthetically, an analysis was performed using cause and effect approach (de Bruyn, 2000: 67). Variables describing economy’s environmental pressures, environmental state and social-economic system’s responses to ecosystem changes were identified (Tab. 1).
27
ARNOLD BERNACIAK Table 1. Variables of the relation economy-environment. Pressures
State
• Agricultural land excluded from agricultural production • Consumption of chemical and lime fertilizers • Forest land excluded from forest production • Water consumption for needs of the national economy and the population • Total primary energy sources consumption • Hard coal extraction • Brown coal extraction • Copper ore extraction • Rock-salt extraction • Lime minerals extraction • Natural aggregates extraction • SO2 emissions • NOX emissions • CO2 emissions • Particulates emissions • Methane emissions • Ammonia emissions • Nitrogen suboxide emissions • Non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions • Arsenic emissions • Chromium emissions • Zinc emissions • Cadmium emissions • Copper emissions • Nickel emissions • Lead emissions • Mercury emissions • Industrial waste water discharged to water or ground • Waste (excluding municipal waste) generated during a year • Hazardous waste generated during a year
• Devastated land requiring reclamation • Degraded land requiring reclamation • Forest land • Forest stands damaged by particulates and gases • Thickness of timber stands damaged by particulates and gases • Resources of hard coal • Resources of brown coal • Resources of copper ore • Resources of rock-salt • Resources of lime minerals • Resources of natural aggregates • Resources of surface water • Exploitation resources of groundwater • Percentage of river length in II class purity by biological criterion • Percentage of river length with out-of-class water quality by biological criterion • Percentage of lakes in I class purity • Percentage of lakes with out-ofclass water quality • Percentage of river length in I class purity by physicochemical criterion • Percentage of river length with out-of-class water quality by physicochemical criterion • Number of bizons • Number of mountain goats • Number of bears • Number of beavers • Area of non-reclaimed storage yards
Source: author’s own elaboration.
28
Responses • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Reclaimed land Managed land National parks Landscape parks Nature reserves Nature monuments Area of protected forests in the Board of the State Forests Planting trees in postindustrial wastelands Planting bushes in postindustrial wastelands Renewable energy use in the economy Number of waste water treatment plants Entities discharging waste water directly into waters or into the ground Ability of completed systems to reduce particulate pollutants Ability of completed systems to reduce gas pollutants Ability of completed systems to treat wastes Reclamation of areas used for depositing industrial wastes during a year Waste recovered during a year Investment expenditures on water management Investment expenditures on waste water management and protection of waters Investment expenditures on waste management, protection of soil and surface and underground waters Expenditures on biodiversity protection Investment expenditures on air and climate protection
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS Factors describing civilization changes were divided into five categories: material welfare, health, science and technology, education, and culture. In each category three variables describing a particular field were chosen (Tab. 2).
Table 2. Factors of civilization development. Science and technology
Education
Culture
Number of deceased from circulatory diseases (per 100 000 population)
Persons employed in R&D sector (per 1 000 population)
Enrolment rate (higher level, age group 19-24 years)
Belles-lettres’ titles published
Percentage of households owning a video cassette recorder [%]
Infant deaths (per 1000 of live births)
Number of patents
Number of primary school pupils per teacher
Number of theatrical performances
Percentage of households owning a washing machine [%]
Average life expectancy (at birth)
Scientific publications’ titles published
Pupils studying English – additional classes (% primary schools pupils)
Number of museums
No
Material welfare
1
Percentage of households owning a passenger car [%]
2
3
Health
Source: author’s own elaboration.
Because of varied nature of specific variables, as well as their diverse units, the variables were standardized and afterwards their unitarisation was performed. After standardization of the variables, in case of state and responses indicators, as well as civilization development factors, all variables were transformed to stimulants. Quotient transformation of destimulants to stimulants was performed as formulated below: Xj =
1 X + cj D j
where: X Dj – variable of destimulant nature
Xj – variable transformed to stimulant c j – constant
29
ARNOLD BERNACIAK In case of variables describing economy’s pressures on environment there was no need to standardize them, as all of them were destimulant in nature. Unitarisation of variables was conducted as follows:
Zj =
X j − X min j X max − X min j j
where:
Xj – variable of stimulant nature (transformed to stimulant nature if originally was destimulant) Zj – variable with normalized values X min – minimum observed variable values j X max – maximum observed variable values j The above operations allowed aggregation of values of variables describing pressures, state and responses in each category of environmental functions in the following years of the studied period. A formula of synthetic measure was used, as described below: K
MSi = ∑ w j zij j =1
where:
MSi – the synthetic measure zij – value of normalized variable Zj in object i (j = 1, 2, …, K) wj – weight of variable Zj It is assumed that all variables influence object i assessment identically, that is: wj =
1 K
with j = 1, 2, …, K
In consequence the synthetic measure adepts the following form:
MSi =
1 K ∑ zij K j =1
Aggregated variables describing pressures, state and responses, as well as civilization changes in the period 1988-2005 are pictured on Fig. 2, together with a curve representing GDP per capita in respective periods. At the beginning of transition period in Poland a slight civilization decrease is marked. During the first 3 years, the value of the synthetic measure drops
30
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS from 0.158 to 0.151. Simultaneously, the economy’s pressure on the environment declines considerably. It decreases from 0.966 to 0.566. In the same time minor changes in socialeconomic system’s responses and ecosystem state may be observed. Their values are 0.2-0.4.
Figure 2. Relations economy-environment in the context of civilization development and welfare growth.
Source: author’s own elaboration based on statistical data from Econstats, The World Factbook 2000-2006, internet database of yearly emissions to air and statistical yearbooks by Central Statistical Office of Poland for 19892006.
Starting from 1991, civilization growth becomes noticeable and it lasts till the end of the studied period. The highest dynamics occurred in the years 1994-1997. The value of the synthetic measure increased twice at that time – from 0.253 to 0.517. During that period vital changes in the indicators of economy-environment relationship take place. Authorities’ responses are intensified and the environmental state improves considerably. On the other hand, dynamics of the decrease in economy’s pressure on the environment diminishes slightly. The year 1996 is a breaking point in the studied relations. At this point the synthetic measures for civilization changes, economy’s pressure on the environment and the state of the ecosystem have very similar values. These are respectively: 0.365, 0.352 and 0.378. From this year on, the value of the civilization changes measure is higher than of the pressures and state measures. The civilization changes curve intersects the remaining curves and then lies above
31
ARNOLD BERNACIAK them. After the intersection, the environmental state improves distinctly and pressures decrease gets more dynamic again. This may imply that that civilization growth stimulates the decrease in economy’s pressure on the environment and simultaneously entails the improvement in ecosystem state. At the end of the studied period, the civilization changes measure reaches 0.803, while environmental pressures drop to 0.149. The synthetic measure of environmental state is 0.658, and responses – 0.496. The course of the civilization changes curve and the environmental state curve seems particularly characteristic for the above described relations. During the first few years, both curves’ change more or less parallel, with low level of their values. The environmental state curve lies above the civilization changes curve. This trend changes in 1995-1996, when the curves reach similar values, converge and intersect. Since 1997 on the curves run parallel again, but this time the civilization changes curve lies above the environmental state curve and both rise monotonically. The shape of the above analyzed curves seems to support the thesis that civilization development entails improvement in environmental state. On the other hand, the shape of the civilization changes curve and economyenvironmental pressures curve points to their inverse relationship. Civilization growth is accompanied by a decrease in economy-environmental pressures. The shape of both curves is divergent. The pressures curve decreases steadily while the civilization changes curve is upwardslping. Their intersection in 1996 results in higher dynamics of pressures decrease. This trend changes at the end of the studied period – despite the rise in civilization changes curve, the pressures curve increases slightly. Characteristic relations between the civilization changes curve and the responses curve are particularly distinct in the first part of the transition period. The curves are parallel – at first they run parallel to the X axis, and then rise. In 1999 the curves intersect. From this point, upwards responses level fluctuates while civilization growth lasts. The shape of the curves shows that at low levels of development the level of civilization development and the level of responses are strongly interdependent. In the course of civilization development this dependence weakens. Responses depend increasingly on conscious actions performed within the context of ecological policy and less and less result from occurring civilization changes. The question appears whether the above described relations are not a result of an increase in welfare solely. Are pressures decrease, state improvement and responses level increase not
32
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS effects of growing welfare (GDP per capita) rather than civilization development? Giving an unequivocal answer to this question is extremely difficult, as between these categories – civilization development and welfare – there are strong feedbacks. Welfare growth accelerates civilization development. In turn, civilization development facilitates further welfare growth. In the studied period both variables have a very high, positive correlation ratio – 0.98. During the transition period in Poland civilization development indicates slightly stronger relationship between pressures and responses than welfare. In the first case correlation is 0.8 and 0.73 respectively, and in the second – 0.75 and 0.66. As for the relations with environmental state, welfare dominates. The strength of this relationship is 0.95, while correlation between civilization development and environmental state reaches 0.91 (Tab. 3).
Table 3. Correlation between economy-environment system’s variables and civilization development and GDP. Specification
Pressures
State
Responses
Civilization development
-0.8
0.91
0.73
Welfare
-0.75
0.95
0.66
Source: author’s own elaboration.
Relatively insignificant differences in the strength of analyzed relations hinder drawing unequivocal conclusions. The observed tendencies allow only to form hypotheses for further studies. The greatest difference is noted for the relations of civilization development and welfare with social-economic system’s responses to environmental changes. This corresponds with the Toffler’s argument (1997: 440-442) mentioned earlier concerning the change in human attitude towards nature. The third wave society reacts. It occurs as a result of civilization transformations and not only as a consequence of the society getting wealthier. A similar situation is observed in case of economy’s pressure on the environment. It exhibits stronger relationship with civilization development than with welfare. It can be assumed that ideas of the third wave society influence environmental pressures decreases stronger than income level. The only area related to welfare stronger than to civilization development is environmental state. High correlation ratio for both relations indicates that civilization development and welfare are very important in improving ecosystems’ state. However, it seems to be impossible to
33
ARNOLD BERNACIAK get a considerable improvement of environment-economy relations solely as the result of increase of the welfare. This factor seems to be condition sine qua non. A sufficient condition for this process may be civilization development.
Literature Bruyn, S. M. de (2000). Economic Growth and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bruyn, S. M. de; Bergh Jeroen C. J. M. van den; Opschoor J. B. (1998). Economic Growth and Emissions: Reconsidering the Empirical Basis of Environmental Kuznets Curves. Ecological Economics 25: 161-175. Costanza, R.,; Wainger, L. (1991). Ecological economics: a new approach to understanding and managing the interactions of humans and nature. In: Rothkrug, P.; Olson, R. L. (eds.). Mending the Earth: a world for our grandchildren: 50-60. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. Daly, H. E.; Cobb, J. (1989). For the Common Good. Boston: Bacon Press. Holmberg, J. (1992). Making Development Sustainable. Washington, DC: Island Press. Munn, R.E. (1991). Towards Sustainable Development: an Environmental Perspective. In: Archibugi, F.; Nijkamp, P. (eds.). Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development: 49-72. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pearce, D. (1993). Blueprint 3. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Pearce, D.; Markandya, A.; Barbier, E. (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zmiany w relacjach gospodarka-środowisko jako efekt rozwoju cywilizacyjnego, na przykładzie Polski w latach 1988-2005 Streszczenie
Poprawa relacji gospodarka-środowisko jest jednym z ważnych celów rozwoju trwałego i zrównoważonego. Zmiany relacji gospodarka-środowisko zależą od wielu czynników. Jednym z nich jest poziom dobrobytu - relacje pomiędzy poziomem wzrostu gospodarczego a presją na środowisko ukazuje środowiskowa krzywa Kuznetsa. Jednakże równie ważnym czynnikiem wydaje się być rozwój cywilizacyjny. Takie elementy jak nauka, rozwój technologiczny, edukacja, kultura czy zdrowie mogą stanowić ważny czynnik poprawy relacji gospodarkaśrodowisko. Artykuł przedstawia ilościową analizę zmian relacji gospodarka-środowisko w kontekście zmian cywilizacyjnych w Polsce w okresie transformacji gospodarczej w latach 19882005. Słowa kluczowe: trwały i zrównoważony rozwój, dobrobyt, rozwój cywilizacyjny, PKB.
34
