Biodiversity, Demography and Economy: An Exploration of Linkages
Amitabha Sinha Reader Department of Analytical Applied Economics Tripura University Abstract: A text book definition of ‘biodiversity’ is “variation of life at all levels of biological organisation”. This paper investigates the inter-linkages between biodiversity, population density and economic prosperity in the context of 112 countries of the world A p roduction function approach is adopted. However, the analysis allows for technical ineffic iency .World Bank classification is adopted in classification of the countries as high, mediu m and low income. 112 countries are taken up for study on the basis of availability of rel evant data. The results of the analysis do not support the hypothesis that high income countries are technically more efficient in maintaining biodiversity, even when allowance is m ade for differences in population density. Keywords: Biodiversity, Technical Efficiency, Deforestation. I. Introduction Wikipedia observes that the current text book definition of ‘biodiversity’ is “v ariation of life at all levels of biological organisation”, that is, genes, species and habitatio ns existing on land, water and air. According to the HIPPO hypothesis of Edward O. Wilson (1988 ), the threat factors for biodiversity are: Habitat destruction (H), Invasive species ( I), Pollution (P), Human over population (P) and Over harvesting (O). One of the aspects of habitat destruction .Availability of flora and fauna, on the other hand, can be related to availabil ity of forest area This can measured in terms of total geographical area of the country as percenta ge of forest area in total geographical area, It can be also looked upon from the context of total population .Dividing the forest area by total population, per capita forest area can be cal culated, Per capita GDP is a measure of economic productivity of a country. In economics , pr oduction is value addition or prevention of value loss .Here , not only exchange value but a lso use value and non –use value have to be considered . Similarly, per capita forest is a mea sure of biodiversity productivity of a country (Bhattacharya, R, N. (2001). Taking this approach, one 2 can employ production function and efficiency frontier method naturally .This is elaborated in the next section . II. The Model The model proposed in the present study has two layers. Habitat is captured by t he proxy variable per capita forests of a country. Economic development is measured by pe r capita GDP. In the traditional analysis of the relationship between biodiversity and ec onomic development, it is implicitly assumed that each country is operates at the margi n of technologically determined production possibility frontier. This assumption is r eplaced by the possibility that the country may operate inside the production possibility front ier. Michael Farrell (1957) introduced a methodology to measure economic, technical (TE), and input and output allocative efficiency (AE). According to Farrell, TE is associated with t he ability to produce on the frontier iso-quant, while AE refers to the ability to produce at a given level of output using the cost-minimizing input ratios. Alternatively, technical ineffici ency is related to deviations from the frontier iso-quant, and allocative inefficiency refers to deviations from the minimum cost input ratios. Thus, EE is defined as the capacity to produce a predetermined quantity of output at minimum cost for a given level of technology (Farrell and Michael, 1957; Dewatt and Billie R. 1979). Therefore, the production function is not written as follows: Yi = β0 + β1Xi + vi … … … (1) Here i represents the country and vi is white noise. We write the production fun ction as: Yi = β0 + β1Xi + vi – ui … … … (2) Here ui represents the gap etween the actual production possi ility frontier an d the efficient production possi ility frontier. O viously, ui is a negative term. Only when ui = 0, the country operates at efficient level. We assume that vi is a stochastic varia le which ha s a half normal distri ution ecause ui cannot have positive values. The maximum value it can ha ve is zero. O viously, ui is a measure of technical efficiency. In the first layer of analys is, we estimate the technical efficiency of rich and poor countries. Then we introduce the demog raphic factor in the second layer. Population density represents the demographic dimension of population. Here two types of questions are addressed. Firstly, what is the impact of popula tion density on the technical efficiency of the countries? Secondly, is there any difference in this impact etween the rich and the poor countries? For testing this hypothesis, we constru ct the following econometric model. Yi = β0 + β1X i + β2d1 + β3d2+ vi … … … (3) 3 Here Y represents technical efficiency, X represents population density, d1 is a dummy varia le which takes the value of 0 for poor countries and 1 for high income cou ntries. Similarly , d2 is 1 for middle income countries . Here , vi is the white noise. The interpretation of the coefficients in the case of dummy varia le model can e r iefly discussed here. Let us take the case when d = 0. Then, we have Yi = β0 + β1X i + vi … … … (4) However, if d2 = 1 and d1 = 0 ,which is the middle income country case ,we shall have Yi = (β0 + β3) + β1X i + vi … … … (5) Therefore, β3 measures the difference in technical efficiency of middle income a nd poor countries caused y population density. We expect that β3 is positive and statis tically significant. Similarly, for β2. We expect that β1 is negative and statistically significant. III. Data We o tained data from http://www.monga ay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm. These data, ased on FAO for forests, have een criticised for their uneven quality across nations and inconsistencies in dentitions. But despite this .they remain important source of cross-national information on forests and the total amount o f forest cover. Per-capita GDP is in US $ for the year 1997. Forest data are for t he year 2000. Population densities data refer to 1999.Based on availa ility of data, 112 countries are selected for analysis. The countries have average per capita forests less than o r equal to 2 hectares. Major three categories of Wold Bank, namely, High, Middle and Poor inc ome classification is adopted (World Bank, 2003) in classifying the countries . IV. Results It is argued in this paper that the capacity of the high income coun tries to protect their forest resources can e analysed assuming that these economies are technic ally at the efficiency frontier. If this possi ility is not taken for granted, then one may try to relate per capita GDP in terms of TE to maintain average per capita forest area of a countr y. This can e done using Stochastic Frontier Model. The results are summarised in Ta le 1. 4 Ta le 1: Efficiency Analysis Stochastic Frontier Normal/half-normal Model Log likelihood = -85.277955 Num er of o servations = 112 Wald chi2(1) = 0.17 Pro >chi2 = 0.6811 Per Capita Forests(Dependent) Coefficient Std. Error z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] Per Capita GDP -0.0000021 0.0000052 -0.41 0.681 -0.000012 0.0000080 Constant 0.5446 0.2482 2.19 0.028 0.0582 1.0310 /lnsig2v -1.3151 0.1337 -9.84 0 -1.5771 -1.0531 /lnsig2u -10.5422 117.9498 -0.09 0.929 -241.72 220.6352 sigma_v 0.5181 0.0346 - - 0.4545 0.5907 sigma_u 0.0051 0.3030 - - 3.25E-53 8.13E+47 sigma2 0.2685 0.0359 - - 0.1981 0.3389 lam da 0.0099 0.3061 - - -0.5899 0.6098 Data Source: http:/monga ay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm. The sign of the income coefficient is negative. This implies that per capita for est is lower in those countries which have higher per capita GDP on the average. Howeve r, the statistical significance of the estimate is very low as shown y the z value whi ch is -0.41. For the estimated log likelihood value we o tain average per capita forest of 1. 09 hectare. Among log likelihood ratio test, the lagrangian multiplier test and the Wald tes t, the Wald statistic is considered to e more applica le. The p value for the Wald statisti c is 0.68. This means that the goodness of fit of the model is not very high. These limitat ions of the data have to e kept in mind while studying Ta le 2. Ten countries (including highest and lowest ranking in terms of per capita incom e, population density and technical efficiency) as major countries among 112 select ed countries are reported in Ta le 2. These 10 countries are classified in terms of World Bank classification y income as high, low and low (medium), per capita income r anking, population density ranking and technical efficiency ranking. If the countries ar e ranked according to technical efficiency and classified as: high technical efficiency ( rank 1 to 37), medium technical efficiency (rank 38 to 74) and lo technical efficiency (rank 75 to 112), ut considers World Bank categories of high, medium and low income countries, then o ne finds that only 4 countries out of the 37 countries of high technical efficiency elon g to high income group. However, if the countries are ranked according to the per capita G DP and one considers the countries with rank 1 to 37 as high income countries then one find s that 10 countries out of the high income countries elong to high technical efficiency g roup. In other words, the general impression that high income countries are always etter in ma naging there 5 environment in iodiversity is not supported y the present set of data. Ta le 2 focuses on 10 countries which includes apart from India, China and U.S.A. the countries which have the highest and lowest rank in per capita GDP, population density and technical effi ciency. It may e noted that the country with the highest per capita income has rank 1 and the country with the lowest per capita income has rank 112. Similarly, the country with the highest technical efficiency has rank 1 and the lowest has the rank 112. In the case of population density, the country with the highest population density has the rank 1 and the lowest 112. India and China are low in per capita income rank and very low in technical effi ciency rank. U.S.A. fares etter in technical efficiency with a rank of 27 as shown in Ta le 2. Ta le 2: A Few Major Countries’ Location Pattern Name of the Country World Bank Classification Per Capita Income Rank Population Density Rank Technical Efficiency Rank 1. Switzerland High 1 15 64 2. USA High 7 92 27 3. India Low 87 3 106 4. China Low 76 22 102 5. Japan High 2 2 65 6. Germany High 5 13 84 7. Ethiopia Low 112 64 112 8. New Zealand High 12 102 1 9. Repu lic of Korea High 16 1 86 10. Mauritania Low 84 112 105 Data Source : http://www.monga ay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm Note: Rank according to descending order. 6 At the second layer of analysis, we ask two questions: (a) how does population density impact on technical efficiency of the countries and ( ) is there any dif ference etween the impacts among the rich and the poor countries. Ta le 3 shows that the coeffi cient of population density is negative and statistically significant. However, the coeff icient of the dummy varia le is positive in the case of high income and negative in the case o f medium income countries. However, the coefficients are not statistically significant. T he positive sign of dummy of high income countries implies that given population density technica l efficiency is higher in high income countries compared to the low income countries which ca n e thought of as the control group. But the dummy has a negative sign for medium in come countries implying a poorer performance in efficiency compared to the poor incom e countries. However, these results are not statistically significant. This means that no significant difference is found in technical efficiency given population density among high, medium and poor countries. Ta le 3: Regression Results Source SS df MS Num er of o servations = 112 F(3, 108) = 13.26 Pro > F = 0 R-squared = 0.2691 Adj R-squared = 0.2488 Root MSE = 0.000045 Model 0.000000080 3 0.000000027 Residual 0.00000022 108 0.0000000020 Total 0.00000030 111 0.0000000027 Efficiency Coefficient Standard Error t P>t [95% conf. Interval] Population Density -0.00000032 0.000000053 -6.03 0 -0.00000042 -0.00000021 Dummy High 0.0000145 0.000014 1.06 0.292 -0.0000127 0.0000417 Dummy Medium -0.0000086 0.0000094 -0.92 0.361 -0.0000273 0.00001 _Constant 0.9966236 0.0000080 - 0 0.9966077 0.9966394 [Source: http://www.monga ay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm V. Discussion The results o tained in the present study do not support the proposition that an economically advanced country manages its environment and iodiversity more efficiently. In s pite of the limitations of data this major finding seems to e a reasona le finding, the vas t literature which has emerged in environmental economy (Bhattacharya, 2001) show that enviro nmental goods exhi it the properties of non-rivalry and non-excluda ility. In the case o f such goods there is market failure. This means that market driven solutions are not pareto- efficient. 7 Pareto efficiency is the sum total of technical efficiency and allocative effici ency. The relationship etween pu lic good, property rights and technical efficiency is no t analysed in the literature as thoroughly as the relationship etween pareto- efficiency and pu lic good. But the essential economic logic may not e so difficult to understand. Due to u nclear ownership pattern of natural resources like forest their economic value which ma y e considered to e the sum total of used value and non-used value may not e prope rly recognised y the producers. This may lead to over exploitation of natural resou rces – often called ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hanley, Nick, Jason F. Shogren and Ben White, 1 997). Therefore, technical efficiency may not e exhi ited y countries which are main ly market driven economies. VI. Conclusions Economic development has led to industrialisation, greater use of fossil fuel, p opulation explosion and a high degree of regional inequality. A deeper analysis will show that it is not economic development as such ut market led economic development and market fail ures which are at the root of the environmental crisis of the present world. Interven tions y government and national and international level have thus ecome important. The United Nations Environmental Agency has een organising conferences to create a common platform of nations from 1972 onwards. The Copenhagen Summit held in the period (7 to 18) Decem er, 2009 on climate change fail to ring a out a comprehensive glo al comm itment indicating the fact that national policies of advanced countries often serve the interest of ig usiness. The profit interests o struct the corporate decision making process fr om adopting initiatives which are perceived to have negative implications for profita ility. The long term point of view may sometimes e sacrificed at the altar of immediate gains. The c ivil society throughout the world must adopt a more clear stance to countervail the short-run perspective for a more sustaina le human development process not only at regional and nation al level ut also at glo al level. This conclusion emanates from the premise that the macro a lways dominates the micro in the socio-economic spheres. References 1. Bhattacharya, Ra indra N. (2001). Environmental Economics: An Indian Perspect ive, Oxford University Press. 8 2. Chakravarty, Satya R., Dipankar Coondoo, Ro in Mukherjee (1998). Quantitative Economics: Theory and Practice, Allied Pu lishers Limited, New Delhi. 3. Dewatt, Billie R. (1979). Modernization in a Mexican Ejido: A Study in Econom ic Adaptation, New York, Cam ridge University Press. 4. Farrell, Michael (1957). The Measurement of Productivity Efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistics Society, Series A, 120, Part 3: 253-90. 5. FAO, (2003). The State of the World s Forests 2003, http://www.monga ay.com/deforestation_pcover.htm. 6. Hanley, Nick, Jason F. Shogren and Ben White (1997). Environmental Economics: In Theory and Practice, Macmillan Press Limited, Delhi. 7. Wilson, Edward O. (ed.) Frances M.Peter (associate editor) (1988). Biodiversi ty, National Academy Press, online edition. 8. World Bank (2003). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Po or People, The World Bank, USA.