A Sustainable Century?

Abstract

This chapter traces the long-run development of genuine savings (GS) during the twentieth century using a panel of developed countries (Great Britain, Germany, Switzerland, France, the US, and Australia) and resource-abundant countries in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico) representing approximately 50% of the world’s output in terms of GDP by 1950. It includes large economies and small open economies, and resource-rich and resource-scarce countries, allowing comparison of their historical experiences. Components of GS considered include physical and human capital as well as resource extraction and pollution damages. Generally, there is evidence of positive GS over the course of the twentieth century, although the two world wars and the Great Depression left considerable marks, but also striking differences between Latin American and developed countries when total factor productivity is included; this could be a signal of natural resource curse or technological gaps unnoticed in previous works.

Natural Resources Curse in the Long Run? Bolivia, Chile and Peru in the Nordic Countries’ Mirror

“…One of the most spread of these measures is genuine savings (GS), which account for net savings, natural resource depletion, environmental damage (using CO 2 emission as a proxy), human capital formation and total factor productivity gains. There are some advances regarding two of the countries of our study; in the case of Sweden, GS estimations are available since 1850 and in the case of Chile since 1900 [134,135]. The incorporation into the analysis of resource intensity measures could also improve our understanding due to fact decoupling: the capacity of the digital economy to reduce the use of materials is going to have an impact on countries depending on natural resources [136].…”

Does natural resource extraction compromise future well-being? Norwegian Genuine Savings, 1865-2018

“…Despite the popularity of the World Bank framework, there exist several possibilities to further extend and improve the World Bank methodology. First, Biasi et al (2019) and Blum et al (2017) propose that the explanatory capacity of GS could be improved by the inclusion of additional Both values significantly exceed the price of $28.62/tCO 2 3 utilized in the World Bank estimations (Bolt et al, 2002).…”

“…In difference to the World Bank methodology summarized in Bolt et al (2002), this study allows for negative natural resource rents and includes fishery rents. Moreover, like most long-term GS studies this paper includes GSTFP estimates, which account for technological change over time (Blum et al, 2017;Greasley et al, 2014;Qasim et al, 2020).…”

Sustainable Economic Policy and Well-Being: The Relationship between Adjusted Net Savings and Subjective Well-Being

“…ANS is an indicator to measure sustainable development at the macro-level over the long-run (Arrow et al, 2012, Blum, Ducoing, & McLaughin, 2017, Gnègnè, 2009, Greasley et al, 2014, Hamilton & Clemens, 1999, Pezzey, 2004. ANS was first introduced by Pearce & Atkinson (1993) as an indicator of "weak sustainability" 3 based on the reformation of the Hartwick Rule (Hartwick, 1977(Hartwick, , 1990.…”