Search results

The purpose of this paper is to revise, update and extend the economic vulnerability and economic resilience indices, where economic vulnerability is associated with inherent exposure to external shocks and economic resilience with policies that enable a country to minimize or withstand the negative effects of such shocks. This study also proposes a revised vulnerability/resilience framework to assess the risk of a country being harmed by external economic shocks.

The methodology used in the study involves defining economic vulnerability in terms of inherent features of an economy and defining economic resilience in terms of policy-induced changes, and then devising measureable indices to measure such vulnerability and resilience across countries. The exercise required the examination of various global indices to assess their suitability, in terms of relevance and country coverage, for measuring the vulnerability index and the resilience index and the components of the two indices.

The main finding of the study is that a number highly vulnerable states, including economically successful small island economies, emerged with high resilience scores, suggesting that they adopt policies that enable them to withstand the harmful effects of external shocks. This possibly explains why these states register relatively high GDP per capita, in spite of their high exposure to shocks. On the other hand, a number of countries, mostly large and poor developing countries, that are not highly exposed to external shocks due to their limited dependence on external trade, emerged with a low degree of policy-induced economic resilience.

The study utilized global indicators which sometimes had missing data and these had to be filled in using approximations based on assumptions, and alternative assumption could have produced a different approximations. In addition the classification of countries in terms of the vulnerability and resilience nexus depended highly on many underpinning assumptions, including the definitions and the measurement of the components, the weighting schemes and the thresholds used. It is likely that alternative assumptions would yield alternative classifications.

An important practical implication of this study is that highly economically vulnerable states can reduce the harmful effects of external economic shocks if they adopt policies that lead to resilience building. On the other hand, countries that are not highly exposed to external shocks, can render themselves economically unstable due to their weak economic, social and environmental governance.

This study considers social development and cohesion as one of the pillars of resilience building. The implication of this approach is that social governance, leading to improvements in the education and health of the population could reduce the harm arising from a country’s exposure to external shocks. This is because social governance affects the extent to which relations within a society are properly developed, enabling an effective functioning of the economic apparatus without the hindrance of civil unrest.

This study has extended previous work on the vulnerability and resilience framework, to include almost all countries of the world, using updated data, and has revised the resilience index to include environmental governance. It has also redefined market flexibility to allow for the downsides of excessive financial riskiness. The revision of vulnerability and resilience indices in the light of new data and their interaction showed more convincingly that economies that are highly economically vulnerable could still register economic success as a result of resilience-conducive policies associated with good economic, political, social and environmental governance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether good governance across countries, utilising the Rule of Law indicator of the Worldwide Governance Indicators, is associated with economic growth, measured in terms of real GDP. It is to be noted that in this paper both variables are measured in terms of changes, comparing like with like. It is hypothesised that a country with a high level of economic development and a high level of good governance (typically an economically advanced country) tends to find it more difficult to improve these two variables, when compared to a country with lower levels GDP per capita and good governance (typically an economically backward country). This assumption is termed the “diminishing marginal governance effect”.

The paper tests the hypothesis that governance improvements are related to real GDP growth, using the panel data regression approach. In this way both variables are measured in terms of changes, comparing like with like. Relevant control variables are utilised to impose the ceteris paribus condition.

The paper finds that improvements in good governance are statistically and significantly related to economic growth. This confirms the hypothesised “diminishing marginal governance effect” explained above.

The main research limitation of this paper is that measuring changes in the “Rule of Law” indicator over time may be subject to errors given that the “Rule of Law” score of each year is an average value with related standard deviations, and the latter vary from one year to another and from one country to another.

The major practical implication of this paper is that good governance matters for economic growth and that in order to produce evidence for this the governance score must be measured in terms of changes and not in terms of levels. Another implication is that equations that compare economic growth with levels of governance are misspecified as they would not be comparing like with like.

There are various beneficial social implications associated with good governance which is considered as a major pillar for orderly social relationships. Economic growth also has important social implications as it means, if properly distributed, improvements in material well-being of the population.

The originality of this paper is that it measures governance in terms of changes and not of levels. Studies on the relationship between governance and economic growth that measure governance in terms of levels generally do not find a positive relationship between the two variables. In using changes in both governance and real GDP, this paper confirms the “diminishing marginal effect of governance”, hypothesis.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the risk of a population in a given territory being harmed by climate change by distinguishing between: natural factors, which are associated with inherent vulnerability; and man‐made or policy‐induced factors, which are associated with adaptation. It is argued that this distinction is useful as a methodological approach and for policy making.

The approach utilises indices of vulnerability and adaptation, and juxtaposes them to arrive at an assessment of risk.

The major findings of this paper are that the “lowest‐risk” or “managed‐risk” category of territories are mostly port cities in high‐income countries, whereas the “mismanaged‐risk” and “highest‐risk” category of territories are vulnerable port cities located in low‐income countries.

The originality of the paper is that it highlights the distinction between natural and man‐made risks in arriving at a total assessment of risk – a distinction of utmost importance for policy making. An important, although obvious, conclusion is that adaptation does not reduce the inherent vulnerability of the territories concerned, but it serves to enable humans to withstand, bounce back from or absorb the effects of vulnerability to climate change.