Eric Neumayer

Bio: Eric Neumayer is an academic researcher from London School of Economics and Political Science. The author has contributed to research in topics: Foreign direct investment & Globalization. The author has an hindex of 86, co-authored 394 publications receiving 23675 citations. Previous affiliations of Eric Neumayer include Peace Research Institute Oslo & University of Oxford.

Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring The Limits Of Two Opposing Paradigms

Abstract: In the debate about sustainable development, the key question is whether natural capital can be substituted by man-made capital. Proponents of weak sustainability maintain that man-made and natural capital are substitutable in the long term whilst followers of strong sustainability believe they are not. This insightful book assesses whether science can unambiguously endorse either paradigm and explores the extent to which, and at what cost, certain forms of natural capital should be preserved. The book explores the limits of the two opposing paradigms of sustainability in an accessible and illuminating way. The author begins by examining the availability of natural resources for the production of consumption goods and the environmental consequences of economic growth. He also identifies the critical forms of natural capital in need of preservation given risk, uncertainty and ignorance about the future, and addresses the important topic of sustainability indicators. In doing so, he analyses indicators of weak sustainability such as Genuine Savings and the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, and indicators of strong sustainability including ecological footprints, material flows, sustainability gaps and other measures which combine the setting of environmental standards with monetary valuation. For the most part, requiring only a basic knowledge and understanding of economics, this accessible book will ensure the important theoretical and empirical debates surrounding sustainable development are available for a wide audience including undergraduate and postgraduate students of environmental and ecological economics. It will also be of interest to researchers and policymakers involved in the sustainable management of environmental resources.

The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981–2002

Abstract: Natural disasters do not affect people equally. In fact, a vulnerability approach to disasters would suggest that inequalities in exposure and sensitivity to risk as well as inequalities in access to resources, capabilities, and opportunities systematically disadvantage certain groups of people, rendering them more vulnerable to the impact of natural disasters. In this article we address the specific vulnerability of girls and women with respect to mortality from natural disasters and their aftermath. Biological and physiological differences between the sexes are unlikely to explain large-scale gender differences in mortality rates. Social norms and role behaviors provide some further explanation, but what is likely to matter most is the everyday socioeconomic status of women. In a sample of up to 141 countries over the period 1981 to 2002 we analyze the effect of disaster strength and its interaction with the socioeconomic status of women on the change in the gender gap in life expectancy. We fi...

The Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters: The Impact of Catastrophic

Abstract: Abstract Natural disasters do not affect people equally. In fact, a vulnerability approach to disasters would suggest that inequalities in exposure and sensitivity to risk as well as inequalities in access to resources, capabilities, and opportunities systematically disadvantage certain groups of people, rendering them more vulnerable to the impact of natural disasters. In this article we address the specific vulnerability of girls and women with respect to mortality from natural disasters and their aftermath. Biological and physiological differences between the sexes are unlikely to explain large-scale gender differences in mortality rates. Social norms and role behaviors provide some further explanation, but what is likely to matter most is the everyday socioeconomic status of women. In a sample of up to 141 countries over the period 1981 to 2002 we analyze the effect of disaster strength and its interaction with the socioeconomic status of women on the change in the gender gap in life expectancy. We find, first, that natural disasters lower the life expectancy of women more than that of men. In other words, natural disasters (and their subsequent impact) on average kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age than men. Since female life expectancy is generally higher than that of males, for most countries natural disasters narrow the gender gap in life expectancy. Second, the stronger the disaster (as approximated by the number of people killed relative to population size), the stronger this effect on the gender gap in life expectancy. That is, major calamities lead to more severe impacts on female life expectancy (relative to that of males) than do smaller disasters. Third, the higher women's socioeconomic status, the weaker is this effect on the gender gap in life expectancy. Taken together our results show that it is the socially constructed gender-specific vulnerability of females built into everyday socioeconomic patterns that lead to the relatively higher female disaster mortality rates compared to men.

Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution

Abstract: This study adds to the emerging literature examining empirically the link between population size, other demographic factors and pollution. We contribute by using more reliable estimation techniques and examine two air pollutants. By considering sulfur dioxide, we become the first study to explicitly examine the impact of demographic factors on a pollutant other than carbon dioxide at the cross-national level. We also take into account the urbanization rate and the average household size neglected by many prior cross-national econometric studies. For carbon dioxide emissions we find evidence that population increases are matched by proportional increases in emissions while a higher urbanization rate and lower average household size increase emissions. For sulfur dioxide emissions, we find a U-shaped relationship, with the population-emissions elasticity rising at higher population levels. Urbanization and average household size are not found to be significant determinants of sulfur dioxide emissions. For both pollutants, our results suggest that an increasing share of global emissions will be accounted for by developing countries. Implications for the environmental Kuznets curve literature are described and directions for further work identified.

Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights

Abstract: After the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights, many global and regional human rights treaties have been concluded. Critics argue that these are unlikely to have made any actual differe...

Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity

Abstract: 1. Introduction and Overview. 2. Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers. 3. Detecting and Assessing Collinearity. 4. Applications and Remedies. 5. Research Issues and Directions for Extensions. Bibliography. Author Index. Subject Index.

Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress

Abstract: As GDP is a measure of market capacity and not economic well-being, this report has been commissioned to more accurately understand the social progress indicators of any given state. Gross domestic product (GDP) is the most widely used measure of economic activity. There are international standards for its calculation, and much thought has gone into its statistical and conceptual bases. But GDP mainly measures market production, though it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being. Conflating the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions. One reason why money measures of economic performance and living standards have come to play such an important role in our societies is that the monetary valuation of goods and services makes it easy to add up quantities of a very different nature. When we know the prices of apple juice and DVD players, we can add up their values and make statements about production and consumption in a single figure. But market prices are more than an accounting device. Economic theory tells us that when markets are functioning properly, the ratio of one market price to another is reflective of the relative appreciation of the two products by those who purchase them. Moreover, GDP captures all final goods in the economy, whether they are consumed by households, firms or government. Valuing them with their prices would thus seem to be a good way of capturing, in a single number, how well-off society is at a particular moment. Furthermore, keeping prices unchanged while observing how quantities of goods and services that enter GDP move over time would seem like a reasonable way of making a statement about how society’s living standards are evolving in real terms. As it turns out, things are more complicated. First, prices may not exist for some goods and services (if for instance government provides free health insurance or if households are engaged in child care), raising the question of how these services should be valued. Second, even where there are market prices, they may deviate from society’s underlying valuation. In particular, when the consumption or production of particular products affects society as a whole, the price that individuals pay for those products will differ from their value to society at large. Environmental damage caused by production or consumption activities that is not reflected in market prices is a well-known example.