Jiayu Wang , Ke Wang , Klaus Hubacek , Kuishuang Feng , Yuli Shan , Yi-Ming Wei
{"title":"全球贸易模式的变化加剧了全球的不平等 实现可持续发展目标","authors":"Jiayu Wang , Ke Wang , Klaus Hubacek , Kuishuang Feng , Yuli Shan , Yi-Ming Wei","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Reaching the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs) is influenced by a country's position in global value chains and its involvement in international trade. Here, we assess how changes in global trade patterns (CGTP) during 2004 and 2014 impacted 13 SDG indicators in 141 countries/regions which are further divided into four income groups. Trade pattern is characterized by the direction, composition, and magnitude of trade, indicating an economy imports what types (composition) and magnitudes of goods or services from where (direction). We find that CGTP aggravated socioeconomic and environmental inequality between countries in two ways: 1) the amount of indicators that significantly worsened due to CGTP decreased from 8 indicators (2004–2007) to 1 (2011–2014) for high-income and upper-middle-income countries, but increased from 5 to 14 for lower-middle-income and low-income countries; 2) CGTP led to a coupling of value added with most natural resource consumption and environmental pollution indicators for low-income countries, while they strengthened decoupling or reducing coupling for other countries. The findings imply one key to achieving SDGs is to address the inequality between rich and poor countries through implementing policy interventions that influence import and vertical supply chain thereby shifting the trade patterns towards environmental-economic decoupling in poor countries.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":"227 ","pages":"Article 108421"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changes in global trade patterns increase global inequality towards Sustainable Development Goals\",\"authors\":\"Jiayu Wang , Ke Wang , Klaus Hubacek , Kuishuang Feng , Yuli Shan , Yi-Ming Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108421\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Reaching the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs) is influenced by a country's position in global value chains and its involvement in international trade. Here, we assess how changes in global trade patterns (CGTP) during 2004 and 2014 impacted 13 SDG indicators in 141 countries/regions which are further divided into four income groups. Trade pattern is characterized by the direction, composition, and magnitude of trade, indicating an economy imports what types (composition) and magnitudes of goods or services from where (direction). We find that CGTP aggravated socioeconomic and environmental inequality between countries in two ways: 1) the amount of indicators that significantly worsened due to CGTP decreased from 8 indicators (2004–2007) to 1 (2011–2014) for high-income and upper-middle-income countries, but increased from 5 to 14 for lower-middle-income and low-income countries; 2) CGTP led to a coupling of value added with most natural resource consumption and environmental pollution indicators for low-income countries, while they strengthened decoupling or reducing coupling for other countries. The findings imply one key to achieving SDGs is to address the inequality between rich and poor countries through implementing policy interventions that influence import and vertical supply chain thereby shifting the trade patterns towards environmental-economic decoupling in poor countries.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"volume\":\"227 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108421\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003185\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003185","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Changes in global trade patterns increase global inequality towards Sustainable Development Goals
Reaching the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs) is influenced by a country's position in global value chains and its involvement in international trade. Here, we assess how changes in global trade patterns (CGTP) during 2004 and 2014 impacted 13 SDG indicators in 141 countries/regions which are further divided into four income groups. Trade pattern is characterized by the direction, composition, and magnitude of trade, indicating an economy imports what types (composition) and magnitudes of goods or services from where (direction). We find that CGTP aggravated socioeconomic and environmental inequality between countries in two ways: 1) the amount of indicators that significantly worsened due to CGTP decreased from 8 indicators (2004–2007) to 1 (2011–2014) for high-income and upper-middle-income countries, but increased from 5 to 14 for lower-middle-income and low-income countries; 2) CGTP led to a coupling of value added with most natural resource consumption and environmental pollution indicators for low-income countries, while they strengthened decoupling or reducing coupling for other countries. The findings imply one key to achieving SDGs is to address the inequality between rich and poor countries through implementing policy interventions that influence import and vertical supply chain thereby shifting the trade patterns towards environmental-economic decoupling in poor countries.
期刊介绍:
Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership.
Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.