Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:07:21.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DASGUPTA REVIEW: SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON INVESTMENT IN CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION, FAMILY PLANNING, AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2021

Partha Dasgupta
Partha Dasgupta*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: pd10000@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three broad categories of transformative changes have been recommended in The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (henceforth Review): (i) The need to address the imbalance between our demands on Nature and its supply. (ii) The need to change our measures of economic success. (iii) The need for institutional change. However, what the private citizen would like to find in the Review differs from what someone in a government department or an international agency or a private company seeks. These notes have been prompted by the many virtual meetings I have had since the Review’s launch and they further explore aspects of the Review’s recommendations.

Keywords

ecological economicssocial capitalbiospheresocially-embedded preferencesfertility ratesfamily planningexternalities and rightsQ28Q51Q56P48J10
Type
Notes and Contributions
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 256: THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON MACROECONOMIC FORECASTING , Spring 2021 , pp. 162 - 177
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of National Institute Economic Review

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, S., Aisha Dasgupta, P., Dasgupta, W.N., Adger, J., Anderies, J., van den Bergh, C., Bledsoe, J., Bongaarts, S., Carpenter, F. S., Chapin, A.-S. III, Crépin, G., Daily, P., Ehrlich, C., Folke, N., Kautsky, E.F., Lambin, S.A., Levin, K.-G., Mäler, R., Naylor, K., Nyborg, S., Polansky, M., Scheffer, J., Shogren, P. S., Jorgensen, B.W and Wilen, J. (2020), ‘Social dimensions of fertility behavior and consumption patterns in the Anthropocene’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 12, pp. 6300–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackburn, S. (2003), Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, J., Bernstein, S., Ezeh, A., Faundes, A., Glasier, A. and Innis, J. (2006), ‘Family planning: The unfinished agenda’, The Lancet, 368, 9549, 1810–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dasgupta, A. (2021), ‘Contraception, avortement, droits reproductifs’, in Charbit, Y. (ed), Dynamiques Démographiques et Développement, Paris/London: ISTE.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, A. and Dasgupta, P. (2017), ‘Socially embedded preferences, environmental externalities, and reproductive rights’, Population and Development Review, 43, 3, 405–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (1982), The Control of Resources, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (1993), An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (2021), The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, London: HMTreasury.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P., Dasgupta, A. and Barrett, S. (2021), ‘Global ecological footprint and the sustainable development goals’, Environmental and Resource Economics (Special Issue in Memory of Karl-Goran Mäler), forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and Ehrlich, P. (2013), ‘Pervasive externalities at the population, consumption, and environment nexus,’ Science, 340, 19, pp. 324–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrlich, P.R. and Holdren, J.P. (1971), ‘Impact of population growth’, Science, 171, 3977, pp. 1212–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttmacher Institute (2017), Adding it Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health, New York: Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute (2020), Adding It Up: Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health 2019, New York: Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
MA—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Capistrano, D., Samper, K.C., Lee, M.J. and Randsepp-Hearne, C. (2005d), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, IV: Multiscale Assessments, Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
MA—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Carpenter, S.R., Pingali, P.L., Bennet, E.M. and Zurek, M.B. (eds) (2005b), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, II: Scenarios, Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
MA—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Chopra, K., Leemans, R., Kumar, P. and Simmons, H. (eds) (2005c), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, III: Policy Responses, Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
MA—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Hassan, R., Scholes, R. and Ash, N. (eds) (2005a), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, I: Current State and Trends, Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Managi, S. and Kumar, P. (2018), Inclusive Wealth Report 2018: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability, New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maskin, E.A. (2008), ‘Mechanism design: How to implement social goals’, American Economic Review, 98, 3, pp. 567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1972), A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S. III, Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J.A. (2009), ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, 461, 7263, 472–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sen, A. (1982), ‘Approaches to the choice of discount rates for social cost benefit analysis’, in Lind, R. (ed), Discounting for Time and Risk in Energy Policy, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
UNFPA (1995), ‘Program of action of the 1994 international conference on population and development (Chapters I–VIII), repr.’, Population and Development Review, 21, 1, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNPD (2019), World Population Prospects 2019 – Data Booklet, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
UNPD (2020), Estimates and Projections of Family Planning Indicators 2020, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Vollset, S.E., Goren, E., Yuan, C.-W., Cao, J., Smith, A.E., Hsiao, T., Bisignano, C., Azhar, G.S., Castro, E., Chalek, J., Dolgert, A.J., Frank, T., Fukutaki, K., Hay, S.I., Lozano, R., Mokdad, A.H., Nandakumar, V., Pierce, M., Pletcher, M., Robalik, T., Steuben, K.M., Wunrow, H.Y., Zlavog, B.S., Murray, C.J.L. (2020), ‘Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: A forecasting analysis for the global burden of disease study’, The Lancet, 396, 10258, pp. 1285–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wackernagel, M. and Beyers, B. (2019), Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget, Gabriola Island: New Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M.L. (1974), ‘Prices vs. quantities’, Review of Economic Studies, 41, 4, pp. 477–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2019), World Development Indicators, Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Wrigley, E.A. (2004), Poverty, Progress, and Population, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar