Development, trade, and the environment: how robust is the Environmental Kuznets Curve?

By M. Cole. Environment and Development Economics, 2003

227 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Taking the "U" out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. (2009, background): “Since these initial studies, many have followed, focusing specifically on air pollution (i.e. List and Gallet, 1999; Heerink et al., 2001; Cole, 2003; Khanna, 2002; Bruvoll et al., 2003; Deacon andNorman, 2006;Merlevede et al., 2006; water pollution (Torras and Boyce, 1998; Paudel et al., 2005),…”
Review of existing literature (2014, background): “Cole (2003) suggested that emissions are monotonic in income and reductions in emissions are time related rather than income related.”
Corruption and the environmental Kuznets Curve: Empirical evidence for sulfur (2010, background): “Many studies find that carbon emissions rise monotonically or find an EKC with a turning point which lies far outside the income sample range (e.g. Holtz-Eakin and Selden [27]; Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh [16] question the existence of an overall EKC; Cole [10] finds that the turning point for carbon d”
An Environmental Kuznets Curve Analysis of U.S. State-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions (2005, unknown): “In contrast, Cole (2003) included measures of trade intensity in EKC regressions of SO2, NOX, and CO2 and found that these tended to have a minor impact on the estimated peaks in these EKCs.”