This paper estimates the effects of foreign investments on the environmental expenditure of listed companies in China by differentiating pre-IPO foreign investors from post-IPO foreign investors. Our findings indicate that while pre-IPO foreign investments make significant and positive contributions, the influence of post-IPO foreign investments is negligible. These results are particularly pronounced for enterprises that are privately owned, located in coastal China, operating in heavily polluting industries, and whose management lacks prior experience in environmental protection and international vision. Furthermore, research efforts are devoted to uncovering potential channels through which pre-IPO foreign investments affect corporate environmental expenditure, including environmental regulations in home countries or regions, government attention to environmental issues, media coverage, and corporate financial constraints.
{"title":"Foreign shareholding and corporate environmental expenditure: Evidence from China","authors":"Zhi Luo, Huanhuan Yang, Yinuo Zhang","doi":"10.1111/joes.12631","DOIUrl":"10.1111/joes.12631","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper estimates the effects of foreign investments on the environmental expenditure of listed companies in China by differentiating pre-IPO foreign investors from post-IPO foreign investors. Our findings indicate that while pre-IPO foreign investments make significant and positive contributions, the influence of post-IPO foreign investments is negligible. These results are particularly pronounced for enterprises that are privately owned, located in coastal China, operating in heavily polluting industries, and whose management lacks prior experience in environmental protection and international vision. Furthermore, research efforts are devoted to uncovering potential channels through which pre-IPO foreign investments affect corporate environmental expenditure, including environmental regulations in home countries or regions, government attention to environmental issues, media coverage, and corporate financial constraints.</p>","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"38 5","pages":"1795-1818"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141015462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We extend the existing framework for decomposition of production length structure in global value chains and propose a novel concept and measure of industrial chain risk exposure on both the demand-side and supply-side at the region-sector level in China. Using data from WIOD, ADB-MRIOT, and China's multi-regional input-output tables, we measure and analyze the industrial chain risk exposures, and risk-return ratios on the demand-side and supply-side of each region-sector in China from 2002 to 2017. Our results reveal the following key insights: First, inland regions exhibit high domestic industrial chain risk exposures, while coastal regions have high global industrial chain risk exposures, a pattern consistent at the region-industry level. Furthermore, demand-side industrial chain risk exposures surpass supply-side exposures within region-sectors. Second, High-tech manufacturing industries display greater risk exposure compared to other sectors. Third, Guangdong and Shanghai, as the main regions of China's international trade, share similar global industrial chain risk exposures to those of Germany and South Korea. Fourth, the bilateral demand-side exposures of the industrial chains in each region are asymmetric.
{"title":"A new method for measuring industrial chain risk exposure: A regional perspective in China","authors":"Ni Hongfu, Zhong Daocheng, Peng Siyi","doi":"10.1111/joes.12626","DOIUrl":"10.1111/joes.12626","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We extend the existing framework for decomposition of production length structure in global value chains and propose a novel concept and measure of industrial chain risk exposure on both the demand-side and supply-side at the region-sector level in China. Using data from WIOD, ADB-MRIOT, and China's multi-regional input-output tables, we measure and analyze the industrial chain risk exposures, and risk-return ratios on the demand-side and supply-side of each region-sector in China from 2002 to 2017. Our results reveal the following key insights: First, inland regions exhibit high domestic industrial chain risk exposures, while coastal regions have high global industrial chain risk exposures, a pattern consistent at the region-industry level. Furthermore, demand-side industrial chain risk exposures surpass supply-side exposures within region-sectors. Second, High-tech manufacturing industries display greater risk exposure compared to other sectors. Third, Guangdong and Shanghai, as the main regions of China's international trade, share similar global industrial chain risk exposures to those of Germany and South Korea. Fourth, the bilateral demand-side exposures of the industrial chains in each region are asymmetric.</p>","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"38 5","pages":"1760-1794"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140678654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We provide a survey of the main mechanisms of market selection used in economics. We categorize existing theories into three broad classes—evolutionary selection, reduced form selection, and rational equilibrium—based on their adopted selection mechanisms. Each paradigm is explored in terms of underlying laws of selection, searching for elements of convergence and divergence in epistemological approaches, hypotheses, and results. The comparison of these paradigms reveals convergences in research directions, particularly in replicating empirical patterns related to firm heterogeneity and acknowledging the role of increasing returns. However, these paradigms diverge in key assumptions and results, including emphasis on model outcomes, sources of increasing returns, mechanisms generating firm heterogeneity, and assumptions regarding firm rationality. The discussion highlights that these differences stem from the epistemological foundations of paradigms. The survey contributes to a nuanced understanding of market selection mechanisms within diverse theoretical frameworks, emphasizing both areas of convergence and divergence among them.
{"title":"Theories of market selection","authors":"Luca Fontanelli","doi":"10.1111/joes.12625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12625","url":null,"abstract":"We provide a survey of the main mechanisms of market selection used in economics. We categorize existing theories into three broad classes—evolutionary selection, reduced form selection, and rational equilibrium—based on their adopted selection mechanisms. Each paradigm is explored in terms of underlying laws of selection, searching for elements of convergence and divergence in epistemological approaches, hypotheses, and results. The comparison of these paradigms reveals convergences in research directions, particularly in replicating empirical patterns related to firm heterogeneity and acknowledging the role of increasing returns. However, these paradigms diverge in key assumptions and results, including emphasis on model outcomes, sources of increasing returns, mechanisms generating firm heterogeneity, and assumptions regarding firm rationality. The discussion highlights that these differences stem from the epistemological foundations of paradigms. The survey contributes to a nuanced understanding of market selection mechanisms within diverse theoretical frameworks, emphasizing both areas of convergence and divergence among them.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140629641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Auke Rijpma, Robin C. M. Philips, Bas J. P. van Bavel
Economists and social scientists have widely contributed to the so-called “Beyond GDP” debate—the view that current measures of economic growth are inadequate to measure well-being and multidimensional indicators. While economic history has not been prominent in these debates, multidimensional indicators have captured the interest of economic historians, with both theoretical and empirical contributions. In this contribution, we examine the areas of consensus and debate in economic history. A comprehensive literature review shows a lack of consensus on how to use multidimensional indicators and that they face substantial critiques. We use two case-studies (a long-term series for the Netherlands and one on the basis of the CLIO-INFRA panel dataset) to illustrate how common findings emerge in the literature and empirical exercises despite methodological differences. We argue that debates on the relation between economic growth and well-being in the long-run using these indicators can not only contribute to many founding questions in economic history—though greater precision and transparency in our assumptions about well-being measurement are necessary—but also to better understand present-day challenges such as how to better pursue growth in well-being and not merely in GDP.
经济学家和社会科学家为所谓的 "超越 GDP "辩论做出了广泛贡献，这一辩论认为目前的经济增长措施不足以衡量福祉和多维指标。虽然经济史在这些争论中并不突出，但多维指标却引起了经济史学家的兴趣，他们在理论和实证方面都做出了贡献。在本文中，我们将探讨经济史中的共识和争论领域。全面的文献综述表明，在如何使用多维指标方面缺乏共识，而且多维指标面临着大量批评。我们利用两个案例研究（一个是荷兰的长期序列，另一个是基于 CLIO-INFRA 面板数据集）来说明，尽管方法上存在差异，但文献和实证研究中如何出现共同的发现。我们认为，利用这些指标对经济增长与长期福祉之间的关系进行辩论，不仅有助于解决经济史上的许多创始问题--尽管我们对福祉衡量的假设必须更加精确和透明，而且还有助于更好地理解当今的挑战，例如如何更好地追求福祉增长而不仅仅是国内生产总值的增长。
{"title":"Multidimensional composite indicators of well-being: Applications in economic history","authors":"Auke Rijpma, Robin C. M. Philips, Bas J. P. van Bavel","doi":"10.1111/joes.12622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12622","url":null,"abstract":"Economists and social scientists have widely contributed to the so-called “Beyond GDP” debate—the view that current measures of economic growth are inadequate to measure well-being and multidimensional indicators. While economic history has not been prominent in these debates, multidimensional indicators have captured the interest of economic historians, with both theoretical and empirical contributions. In this contribution, we examine the areas of consensus and debate in economic history. A comprehensive literature review shows a lack of consensus on how to use multidimensional indicators and that they face substantial critiques. We use two case-studies (a long-term series for the Netherlands and one on the basis of the CLIO-INFRA panel dataset) to illustrate how common findings emerge in the literature and empirical exercises despite methodological differences. We argue that debates on the relation between economic growth and well-being in the long-run using these indicators can not only contribute to many founding questions in economic history—though greater precision and transparency in our assumptions about well-being measurement are necessary—but also to better understand present-day challenges such as how to better pursue growth in well-being and not merely in GDP.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140586218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Utilizing long-term and high-resolution pollution remote sensing data, this study examines the dynamic impact of export expansion on the local environment in China from 2000 to 2020. Regions facing larger export expansion experience more pronounced initial deterioration in local air quality, while followed by a more prominent subsequent environmental improvement, indicating that the environmental impact of trade varies over time. Further analysis reveals that a key driver behind this dynamic change is the adjustment in environmental policies, particularly when local government faces higher pressure in achieving the environmental goals and when the central government takes over environmental monitoring powers. Additionally, under more stringent environmental regulations, regional export growth leads to increased environmental expenditures, concurrently driving localities to reduce heavily polluting engergy inputs such as coal. Our study suggests that environmental policies can facilitate the synergistic development of trade and the environment.
{"title":"The dynamic impact of trade on environment","authors":"Huanhuan Wang, Zhenglian Zhang, Zhiqiang Zhang","doi":"10.1111/joes.12624","DOIUrl":"10.1111/joes.12624","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Utilizing long-term and high-resolution pollution remote sensing data, this study examines the dynamic impact of export expansion on the local environment in China from 2000 to 2020. Regions facing larger export expansion experience more pronounced initial deterioration in local air quality, while followed by a more prominent subsequent environmental improvement, indicating that the environmental impact of trade varies over time. Further analysis reveals that a key driver behind this dynamic change is the adjustment in environmental policies, particularly when local government faces higher pressure in achieving the environmental goals and when the central government takes over environmental monitoring powers. Additionally, under more stringent environmental regulations, regional export growth leads to increased environmental expenditures, concurrently driving localities to reduce heavily polluting engergy inputs such as coal. Our study suggests that environmental policies can facilitate the synergistic development of trade and the environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"38 5","pages":"1731-1759"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140712322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the global financial crisis, a rich and expanding literature on the so-called global financial cycle (GFCy) has emerged. This has fueled a debate in academic and policy circles on how to measure the GFCy, and how it impacts international capital flows, possibly in a time-varying way. We review the literature that has shown the relevance of the GFCy, as well as the heterogeneity of its impact on capital flows and its variations over time. We assess how various indicators of the GFCy affect episodes of large capital flows, and find a robust effect especially on episodes driven by non-resident investors. Non-linearity and instability over time, notably a less strong impact after the global financial crisis, are found at least for some GFCy indicators.
{"title":"The global financial cycle and capital flows: Taking stock","authors":"Beatrice Scheubel, Livio Stracca, Cédric Tille","doi":"10.1111/joes.12621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12621","url":null,"abstract":"Since the global financial crisis, a rich and expanding literature on the so-called global financial cycle (GFCy) has emerged. This has fueled a debate in academic and policy circles on how to measure the GFCy, and how it impacts international capital flows, possibly in a time-varying way. We review the literature that has shown the relevance of the GFCy, as well as the heterogeneity of its impact on capital flows and its variations over time. We assess how various indicators of the GFCy affect episodes of large capital flows, and find a robust effect especially on episodes driven by non-resident investors. Non-linearity and instability over time, notably a less strong impact after the global financial crisis, are found at least for some GFCy indicators.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140585903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We review work that has linked economic inequality and culture to governance quality. We start with contributions that have considered the relationship between inequality and governance from a long‐run perspective. This historical perspective yields a range of insights and helps identify the deep drivers of specific cultural traits that relate to both economic inequality and governance in contemporary societies. We then survey work that has linked inequality and culture to governance in present‐day settings. We identify the complexity of the relationships with causality between any pair of these variables running both ways. These causal patterns, in turn, imply that countries may end up in either a good equilibrium characterized by lower economic inequality, the “right” culture and good governance, or a bad equilibrium described by greater inequality, the “wrong” culture and bad governance. We conclude with a range of policy implications.
{"title":"Economic inequality, culture, and governance quality","authors":"Andreas P. Kyriacou","doi":"10.1111/joes.12623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12623","url":null,"abstract":"We review work that has linked economic inequality and culture to governance quality. We start with contributions that have considered the relationship between inequality and governance from a long‐run perspective. This historical perspective yields a range of insights and helps identify the deep drivers of specific cultural traits that relate to both economic inequality and governance in contemporary societies. We then survey work that has linked inequality and culture to governance in present‐day settings. We identify the complexity of the relationships with causality between any pair of these variables running both ways. These causal patterns, in turn, imply that countries may end up in either a good equilibrium characterized by lower economic inequality, the “right” culture and good governance, or a bad equilibrium described by greater inequality, the “wrong” culture and bad governance. We conclude with a range of policy implications.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140585925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper surveys the literature on historical national accounting, discusses the importance of relative income benchmarks for, in particular, historical income estimates, and presents an update of long run global economic development with a new version of the Maddison Project Database (MPD). As benchmarks are central to methodologies for global income comparisons over time, and therefore vital to MPD, we analyze the consequences and biases of three benchmarks, the 1990 benchmark, the 2011 benchmark and the multiple benchmark method following the recent Penn World Tables (PWT) methodology, for pre‐1940 income estimates. We develop a methodology to determine which benchmark in combination with time series produces the best anchor for the historical income estimates in the MPD. We conclude that the best way forward for the Maddison Project is to stick to the original 1990 benchmark, yet with two important changes. First, we integrate the 2011 benchmark for the post‐1990 period, and second, we fine tune the dataset for the pre‐1940 period by integrating a new historical benchmark for the US/UK comparison in 1909. By integrating more benchmarks, the MPD moves closer to a multiple benchmark approach as developed by the PWT.
{"title":"Maddison‐style estimates of the evolution of the world economy: A new 2023 update","authors":"Jutta Bolt, Jan Luiten van Zanden","doi":"10.1111/joes.12618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12618","url":null,"abstract":"This paper surveys the literature on historical national accounting, discusses the importance of relative income benchmarks for, in particular, historical income estimates, and presents an update of long run global economic development with a new version of the Maddison Project Database (MPD). As benchmarks are central to methodologies for global income comparisons over time, and therefore vital to MPD, we analyze the consequences and biases of three benchmarks, the 1990 benchmark, the 2011 benchmark and the multiple benchmark method following the recent Penn World Tables (PWT) methodology, for pre‐1940 income estimates. We develop a methodology to determine which benchmark in combination with time series produces the best anchor for the historical income estimates in the MPD. We conclude that the best way forward for the Maddison Project is to stick to the original 1990 benchmark, yet with two important changes. First, we integrate the 2011 benchmark for the post‐1990 period, and second, we fine tune the dataset for the pre‐1940 period by integrating a new historical benchmark for the US/UK comparison in 1909. By integrating more benchmarks, the MPD moves closer to a multiple benchmark approach as developed by the PWT.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140602155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article aims to bridge the mainstream social science and the economic history literatures on the drivers of gender equality across contexts. We discuss the explanations in the social science literature on five central dimensions of global gender equality—health, work, education, marriage, and political representation—and survey the economic history literature that studied these explanations in the historical context. We analyze the commonalities and contradictions in the theoretical and methodological approaches of the two strands. The survey then offers an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that can bridge the two strands. By doing so, the review article discusses how incorporating the economic history literature into the social science literature can improve our current understanding of global gender equality in two ways. First, the long durée perspective provides insight into the diversity in the historical turning points in gender equality across world regions over the 20th century. Second, it suggests that the integration of a historical perspective can tackle the difficulties in isolating causal mechanisms and identify why standard economic and institutional conditions have varying impacts on gender equality outcomes across world regions. It also identifies the limitations in the current social science and economic history literatures and provide directions for future research.
{"title":"Synthesizing explanations behind global gender (in)equality: Identifying the gaps and moving forward with more economic history","authors":"Selin Dilli","doi":"10.1111/joes.12620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12620","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to bridge the mainstream social science and the economic history literatures on the drivers of gender equality across contexts. We discuss the explanations in the social science literature on five central dimensions of global gender equality—health, work, education, marriage, and political representation—and survey the economic history literature that studied these explanations in the historical context. We analyze the commonalities and contradictions in the theoretical and methodological approaches of the two strands. The survey then offers an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that can bridge the two strands. By doing so, the review article discusses how incorporating the economic history literature into the social science literature can improve our current understanding of global gender equality in two ways. First, the long durée perspective provides insight into the diversity in the historical turning points in gender equality across world regions over the 20th century. Second, it suggests that the integration of a historical perspective can tackle the difficulties in isolating causal mechanisms and identify why standard economic and institutional conditions have varying impacts on gender equality outcomes across world regions. It also identifies the limitations in the current social science and economic history literatures and provide directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This survey sheds light on the causes and consequences of the global sanitary revolution that resulted in the spread of waterworks and sewerage projects since the middle of the 19th century, by drawing on research from the fields of economic history, economics, and history. I begin with a discussion of the construction of these infrastructures during the period ca. 1850–1950 showing that their spread was relatively similar in major urban cities across the globe, while diffusion within and between countries, as well as within cities themselves, was markedly unequal. Second, I review research estimating the mortality impact of access to clean water and sanitation. Following the provision of these services, infant mortality declined between ca. 10 and 30 percent. Lastly, I examine the drivers of the sanitary revolution with a new framework that distinguishes between proximate factors (e.g., physical capital) and ultimate factors (e.g., institutions). I argue that the state of knowledge in the literature is insufficient to explain between‐ and within country differences in access to sanitary services and that more attention should be devoted to the interaction of political and economic factors within broader institutional, cultural and biogeographic contexts.
{"title":"The global sanitary revolution in historical perspective","authors":"Daniel Gallardo‐Albarrán","doi":"10.1111/joes.12607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12607","url":null,"abstract":"This survey sheds light on the causes and consequences of the global sanitary revolution that resulted in the spread of waterworks and sewerage projects since the middle of the 19th century, by drawing on research from the fields of economic history, economics, and history. I begin with a discussion of the construction of these infrastructures during the period ca. 1850–1950 showing that their spread was relatively similar in major urban cities across the globe, while diffusion within and between countries, as well as within cities themselves, was markedly unequal. Second, I review research estimating the mortality impact of access to clean water and sanitation. Following the provision of these services, infant mortality declined between ca. 10 and 30 percent. Lastly, I examine the drivers of the sanitary revolution with a new framework that distinguishes between <jats:italic>proximate</jats:italic> factors (e.g., physical capital) and ultimate factors (e.g., institutions). I argue that the state of knowledge in the literature is insufficient to explain between‐ and within country differences in access to sanitary services and that more attention should be devoted to the interaction of political and economic factors within broader institutional, cultural and biogeographic contexts.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号