an article by Natalie West Kharkongor (Affiliation(s) not known) published in International Journal of Green Economics Volume 10 Number 2 (2016)
Abstract
The paper begins with the present scenario of the world economy. The paper explains the concept of a new branch of economics, green economics, which focuses on both value-in-use and value-in-exchange and gives importance to the regeneration of individuals, communities and ecosystems.
The paper reflects the practical application of green economics, which is broader than environmental economics and may be able to provide an answer to our future problems. In a world where value is expressed in terms of money, assigning a monetary value to externalities is a significant contribution. Hence, the paper emphasises the importance of sustainability funding.
First, it explains the need for ecology pricing and its feasibility. Furthermore, the paper stresses the need to create a separate pool of funds for sustainability by imposing an ecology cess much like the Swachh Bharat Cess (Clean India Collection) introduced in India recently for certain services to clean up the environment.
The paper concludes with empirical evidence, suggesting a separate legislation to raise necessary funds for the purpose of enriching biodiversity and maintaining ecological balance.
Showing posts with label world_economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world_economy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 3 January 2017
Saturday, 2 April 2016
Economic Outlook: v30 issue 3 March 2016
Overview: Markets rally but risks still to the downside
- Our growth forecast for 2016 is steady this month at 2.3% but the forecast for 2017 has been cut again, to 2.7% from 2.9%.
- The near-term growth outlook has been supported by a decent rally in financial markets. Since mid-February, world stocks have gained around 8%, US high yield spreads have narrowed around 140 basis points and a number of key commodity prices – including oil – have also risen.
- Another supportive trend is still-healthy consumer demand in advanced economies including the US and Eurozone. Although there has been some slippage in consumer confidence, it has been modest compared to either 2012–13 or 2008–09.
- So overall, the global economy still looks likely to avoid recession and strengthen a touch next year. But risks to the outlook remain skewed to the downside.
- Despite the recent market rally, world stocks still remain below their levels at end-2015 and well below last May's peak. Financial conditions more broadly also remain significantly tighter than in mid-2015, and inflation expectations somewhat lower.
- And there are still negative signals from incoming data. The global manufacturing PMI for February showed output flat while the services PMI showed only very modest growth – both were at their lowest since late 2012.
- Economic surprise indices for both the G10 and emerging markets also remain in negative territory, and our world trade indicator suggests no improvement from the dismal recent trends.
- Notable growth downgrades this month include Germany, Japan, the UK, Canada and Brazil.
- In our view, policymakers still have scope to improve the outlook. The latest ECB moves – more negative rates and more QE – will help a little. Widening of QE to corporate bonds also hints that more radical policy options are coming into view. But policies such as central bank equity purchases or money-financed fiscal expansions will probably require global growth to weaken further before they become likely.
Monday, 15 October 2012
Keynes was right, IMF admits. And the deficit fetishists are wrong.
via ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC by Owen Tudor
This blog post is, in my opinion, very important, I have therefore taken what is for me an unusual step and reproduced the text in full – including all the links.
The IMF’s world growth forecasts issued last night [9 October 2012]were, bizarrely, not front page news in most papers this morning, despite the UK’s growth estimate being cut by more than any other OECD economy bar Italy. Slashing the growth rates of most industrialised and emerging economies (apart from the USA, where the growth prediction went up, on the assumption that a deal is reached on the budget) is only part of the news though. Far more revealing is the IMF’s explanation of why the IMF’s growth estimates have been persistently over-optimistic – covered in the report in a two-page box on page 41 co-authored by IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard. An admission – what follows is really over-simplified, for clarity and brevity – apologies.
The IMF now accepts that for every £1 cut from government spending, the reduction of economic activity as a whole is potentially as much as £1.70 – far higher than the £1:£1 ratio the IMF’s original predictions were based on, and of course in completely the opposite direction that British Government policy is based on: that cuts in Government spending will be more than replaced by increased private sector expenditure (based on the so-called “crowding-out hypothesis”.)
So, the IMF is now said to be alarmed that the relentless austerity measures of most of the developed world could lead to weaker and weaker growth even in the emerging economies like Brazil and China. But, bizarrely, this hasn’t stopped the IMF from continuing to support the cuts that Governments like Britain’s are imposing. As former European trade union economist Andrew Watt puts it: “the patient is dying, increase the dosage!”
The argument that changes in Government spending have a greater impact on the economy than 1 is of course central to Keynesianism, and while Keynes is most famous for arguing that increased Government spending creates a “multiplier” of greater than 1 (hence his counter-intuitive allegory involving the state paying workers to bury cash, and letting the private sector dig it up again), cuts in Government expenditure also have a multiplier effect greater than 1. As the IMF now appear to have realised.
Instead of continuing austerity, we urgently need measures to restore growth, because that is the only sustainable (let alone morally acceptable) way to cut deficits.
Original post for related links and comments
This blog post is, in my opinion, very important, I have therefore taken what is for me an unusual step and reproduced the text in full – including all the links.
The IMF’s world growth forecasts issued last night [9 October 2012]were, bizarrely, not front page news in most papers this morning, despite the UK’s growth estimate being cut by more than any other OECD economy bar Italy. Slashing the growth rates of most industrialised and emerging economies (apart from the USA, where the growth prediction went up, on the assumption that a deal is reached on the budget) is only part of the news though. Far more revealing is the IMF’s explanation of why the IMF’s growth estimates have been persistently over-optimistic – covered in the report in a two-page box on page 41 co-authored by IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard. An admission – what follows is really over-simplified, for clarity and brevity – apologies.
The IMF now accepts that for every £1 cut from government spending, the reduction of economic activity as a whole is potentially as much as £1.70 – far higher than the £1:£1 ratio the IMF’s original predictions were based on, and of course in completely the opposite direction that British Government policy is based on: that cuts in Government spending will be more than replaced by increased private sector expenditure (based on the so-called “crowding-out hypothesis”.)
So, the IMF is now said to be alarmed that the relentless austerity measures of most of the developed world could lead to weaker and weaker growth even in the emerging economies like Brazil and China. But, bizarrely, this hasn’t stopped the IMF from continuing to support the cuts that Governments like Britain’s are imposing. As former European trade union economist Andrew Watt puts it: “the patient is dying, increase the dosage!”
The argument that changes in Government spending have a greater impact on the economy than 1 is of course central to Keynesianism, and while Keynes is most famous for arguing that increased Government spending creates a “multiplier” of greater than 1 (hence his counter-intuitive allegory involving the state paying workers to bury cash, and letting the private sector dig it up again), cuts in Government expenditure also have a multiplier effect greater than 1. As the IMF now appear to have realised.
Instead of continuing austerity, we urgently need measures to restore growth, because that is the only sustainable (let alone morally acceptable) way to cut deficits.
Original post for related links and comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
