Structural Change, Economic Growth and Environmental Dynamics with Heterogeneous Agents

  • Angelo AntociEmail author
  • Paolo Russu
  • Elisa Ticci


In many developing countries the asset distribution is highly concentrated and the economic agents differ not only by income, but also by their vulnerability to environmental depletion. The poor, especially in rural areas, tend to be more dependent on natural resources and more vulnerable to ecosystem degradation. Three quarters of the poor live in rural areas andmore than half of the rural poor depend on breeding and agricultural activities: cultivation of staple food is the main source of calories, income and job for the rural poor (IFAD 2001). Moreover, it is commonly recognized that the rural poor in developing countries significantly rely on the common pool resources of the community they live in Dasgupta (2001), while according to World Resources Institute (2005) estimates, around 1 billion of the world poor rely in some way on forests (indigenous people wholly dependent on forests, smallholders who grow farm trees or manage remnant forests for subsistence and income). A meta–analysis of 54 case studies in developing countries found that the poor tend to be more dependent on forest environmental income than better–off households (Vedeld et al. 2004). Natural assets and common or free access resources provide the poor with other additional services: regulating production services such as flood, drought and erosion mitigation, soil renewal, soil fertility or the provision of food, fuelwood and energy and fresh water. Microeconomic studies confirm the relevance of the dependence of the rural population on the community or free access resources (Beck and Nesmith 2001;Cavendish 2000; Falconer 1990; Fisher 2004; Jodha 1986; Narain et al. 2005).On the other hand, the rich have a greater ability to substitute private goods for environmental goods. They are thus able to protect themselves from pollution and to face the depletion of natural capital (United Nations Environment Programme 2004).


Environmental Dynamics Physical Capital Natural Capital United Nations Environment Programme Private Good 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors would like to thank Ramón López for the insightful conversations and discussions on the topics dealt with in this work. We are also grateful to Simone Bertoli, Giovanni Andrea Cornia, Javier Escobal and Alessandro Vercelli as well as the audience of conferences in Ascona, Urbino and Wageningen for their helpful suggestions and comments on a preliminary version. The usual caveats apply.


  1. Antoci, A. (2009). Environmental degradation as engine of undesirable economic growth via self-protection consumption choices. Ecological Economics, 68, 1385–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoci, A., & Bartolini, S. (1999). Negative externalities as the engine of growth in an evolutionary context (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working paper 83.99). MilanGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoci, A., & Bartolini, S. (2004). Negative externalities and labor input in an evolutionary game. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 591–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antoci, A., Galeotti, M., & Russu, P. (2005). Consumption of private goods as substitutes for environmental goods in an economic growth model. Nonlinear Anal-Model Control, 10, 3–34.Google Scholar
  5. Antoci, A., Borgesi, S., & Galeotti, M. (2008). Should we replace the environment? Limits of economic growth in the presence of self-protective choices. International Journal of Social Economics, 35, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, T., & Nesmith, C. (2001). Building on poor people’s capacities: the case of common property resources in India and West Africa. World Development, 29, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brander, J. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1998a). The simple economics of Easter Island: a Ricardo–Malthus model of renewable resource use. American Economic Review, 88, 119–138.Google Scholar
  8. Brander, J. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1998b). Open access renewable resources: Trade and trade policy in a two-country model. Journal of International Economy, 44, 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28, 1979–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conrad, J. M. (1995). Bioeconomic model of the fishery. In D. Bromley (Ed.), Handbook of environmental economics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Dasgupta, P. (2001). Human well-being and natural environment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falconer, J. (1990). The major significance of minors forest products. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, M. (2004). Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IFAD. (2001). The challenge of ending rural poverty, Rural Poverty Report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jodha, N. S. (1986). Common property resources and the rural poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 21, 1169–1181.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, W. A. (1955). The theory of economic growth. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  17. Lpez, R. E. (2003). The policy roots of socioeconomic stagnation and environmental implosion: Latin America 1950–2000. World Development, 31, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lpez, R. E. (2007). Structural change, poverty and natural resource degradation. In G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, & E. Neumayer (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edwards Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Lpez, R. E., Anriquez, G., & Gulati, S. (2007). Structural change and sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Economic Management, 53, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas, R. (2004). Life earnings and rural–urban migration. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsuyama, K. (1992). Agricultural productivity, comparative advantage, and economic growth. Journal of Economic Theory, 58, 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McAusland, C. (2005). Learning by doing in the presence of an open access renewable resource: Is growth sustainable? Natural Resources Modeling, 18, 41–68.Google Scholar
  23. Munro, G. R., & Scott, A. D. (1993). The economics of fisheries management. In A. V. Kneese & J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Handbook of natural resource and energy economics (Vol. III). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  24. Narain, U., Shreekant, G., & vant Veld, K. (2005). Poverty and the environment-exploring the relationship between household incomes, private assets and natural assets (Working paper 134). Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi.Google Scholar
  25. Ranis, G., & Fei, J. C. H. (1961). A theory of economic development. American Economic Review, 51, 533–565.Google Scholar
  26. Schaefer, M. B. (1957). Some considerations of population dynamics and economics in relation to the management of marine fisheries. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 5, 669–681.Google Scholar
  27. United Nations Environment Programme. (2004). Human well-being, poverty and ecosystem services. Exploring the links. Nairobi: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E., & Kobugabe-Berg, G. (2004). Counting on the environment: Forest incomes and the rural poor (Paper no.9̇8). Washington, DC: World Bank Environment Department.Google Scholar
  29. Wirl, F. (1997). Stability and limit cycles in one-dimensional dynamic optimisations of competitive agents with a market externality. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 7, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. World Resources Institute in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank. (2005). World resources 2005. The wealth of the poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia Impresa e RegolamentazioneUniversità di SassariSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations