Environmental Impacts of Globalization (An Empirical Examination of Iran’s Agriculture)

Abstract

Growing development of various industries and the necessity for paying attention to sustainable development, on the one hand, and undesirable effects of environmental pollution on various agricultural and social aspects of countries, on the other hand, have caused environmental protection to be one of the main concerns of policymakers. Accordingly, in recent decades, a large amount of theoretical and empirical research has focused on the methods of improving environmental quality and related effective factors. This research mainly aims to investigate the impact of globalization and agricultural value-added on the amount of pollution arisen due to CO2 emissions in the agricultural sector in Iran. For this purpose, a distributed lag nonlinear model is used over the period 1979-2016. The results indicate that positive agricultural value-added and globalization shocks have a direct and inverse relationship with CO2 emissions, respectively. At the same time, a negative shock in agricultural value-added reduces the pollution of this sector. Moreover, the results indicate significant asymmetry between agricultural value-added and pollution in this sector. The results were obtained by the NARDL method, which is used for the first time to estimate the effect of agricultural value-added and globalization on pollution arisen from CO2 emissions in the Iranian agricultural sector.

Sustaining Agricultural Growth: Traps of Socio–Demographics in Emerging Markets

“…H1: Global Innovation Index (Sadovska et al, 2020) H3: Rural Population (Dewi, 2020;Kraybill & Johnson, 1989;Morales et al, 2022) H4: Social Globalization Index (Ajam et al, 2021;Anderson, 2010;Nugroho et al, 2021;Nugroho & Lakner, 2022;Polackova, 2020) INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Agriculture Value Added (Blakeney, 2022;Haji-Rahimi, 2012) H2: Urban Population (Malik & Ali, 2015;Orsini et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2021;Zhong et al, 2020) DEPENDENT VARIABLE H5: Demographic Pressures (Bilsborrow, 1987) 2. Methodology…”