The EKC hypothesis - formulated 1992, partly as an antithesis to the sustainable development concept discussed in Rio, has long and intensively been discussed in the economics literature. It was found to be true for certain pollutants in certain places, but generally not for energy and overall material flows. So the changing of economic structures as well as the changing composition of environmental pressures have to be taken into account. Doing that, little remains of the hypothesis, and that explains why the once dense sequence of publiucations on the issue has died down the last half decade or so.

Article The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Methodological Artefact?

There is a huge literature on the critique of ecological modernisation theory, postmaterial values and environmental Kuznets curve

The EKC hypothesis - formulated 1992, partly as an antithesis to the sustainable development concept discussed in Rio, has long and intensively been discussed in the economics literature. It was found to be true for certain pollutants in certain places, but generally not for energy and overall material flows. So the changing of economic structures as well as the changing composition of environmental pressures have to be taken into account. Doing that, little remains of the hypothesis, and that explains why the once dense sequence of publiucations on the issue has died down the last half decade or so.

Article The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Methodological Artefact?

This is not just a question about the EKC. I would argue that when the human population grows beyond a certain point, economic growth and associated urbanisation (together with agricultural intensification to feed the population) are absolutely essential for reducing environmental degradation. But these same drivers can also cause degradation, depending on what happens with agriculture and how other population needs are met. See attached paper for a more nuanced discussion.

Article Implications of Agricultural Transitions and Urbanization fo...

There is a presupposition that endless accumulation of capital for the production and realization of surplus value (profits) by way of material inputs, extracted from the physical world with increasing returns to scale, sets in motion a concomitant process of ecological degradation that cannot be decoupled-the income effect of 'Jevons Paradox.' The effect, it is purported, depends on the particular geographical dimensions of spatial productive practice, like peripheral industrialization and resource extraction with concomitant core consumption and innovation, which, in the final instance, produce anthropogenic methane emissions, and rests on an acceptance of a so-called fundamental 4th law of thermodynamics. It is requisite to note, however, that there is no distinct 4th law of thermodynamics that the entire physics profession has missed for 100 years, and has somehow been rediscovered, e.g. by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, and unfortunately has since been suppressed...The inherent assumptions concerning the totality of capitalist production and environmental degradation are unexamined; yet, they influence the following prevailing theories in environmental sociology- there is a tendency to collapse critical understandings of the genus and species of capitalist mode of production, and furthermore a conflation of economic growth with extraction, while not emphasizing the specifics of total income (or total product, in the Marxian sense) produced and the extent to which particular social relations determine its distribution, which, by implication, are inherently unequal...

http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/drivers-of-environment.html

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fields et al, 

I take it that the question concerning the relationship of economic growth and ecological evaluation is a broad and interesting question. Reading through the above responses, it strikes me that given unlimited population growth, ecological degradation is a pretty sure thing. But as I understand the matter, the only thing which has significantly lowered population growth is the kind of economic prosperity which changes life styles. Is that accurate, more or less? 

More specific projects are more concrete and detailed, though. I wonder if this question and discussion might not benefit by some greater attention to details and specific cases: proposals for development of resources and studies of ecological impact. These questions, too, tend to be very political, and may be contentious, but they would seem to have a better empirical grasp of facts on the ground. What is excessively theoretical is less likely to be settled in any definitive or mutually agreed fashion. In consequence, I suspect that a more empirically oriented discussion might better engage the related issues and disputes. 

I take it there are any number of specific cases that might be considered. 

H.G. Callaway

It is an extremely audacious question, because the main current academic see any economic growth as something harmful to the environment. Firstly, I see that there are many people in extreme poverty in the world - which does not justify "anything" under the environmental aspects; but that merit access to resources "usually" reserved only to the middle classes. In addition, the economic growth of the whole society brings new technologies (like the fantastic growth of wind power generation, solar and biomass, over recent decades). Such growth would never have occurred in recessive economy situation.

An important note is the over-reliance on FDI measures in recent ecological unequal exchange studies. Explanations of dependence, and concomitant environmental catastrophes, tend to be 'as-if' statements without necessarily recognizing the actual contextual specifics of how the dependence is systematically manufactured, including the role of history - e.g. the extent to which balance of payments constraints are produced and reproduced over the long-run... At any rate, I reckon the debate should be more nuanced, as evidenced by the following scholarly works:

Article Balance-of-payments-constrained growth in Brazil: 1951-2008

Article Slow Growth, Destructive Competition, and Low Road Labor Rel...

Article AGGREGATE DEMAND,INSTABILITY, AND GROWTH

Article The Growth Imperative: Beyond Assuming Conclusions

Chapter Reconciling Growth and Environment

Article National States and Global Markets: Is There a Prima Facie C...

Article Sustainable growth criteria: Minimum benchmarks and scenario...

Article Globalization and the Pathway to Sociomaterial Betterment

Article Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2: Global Tur...

Article The Two Limits Debates: 'Limits to Growth' and Climate Change

There is a robust EKC-type relationship between urbanization rate and deforestation, which my colleagues and I found in our 2002 Social Science Quarterly article.  The rate of deforestation goes down sharply after the population is approximately 30% urban.  Also, the growth in service economies sharply reduces the rate of deforestation.  So, yes, economic growth can reduce the rate of some forms of environmental degradation.