![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown many challenges for governments across the globe. Building on an initial understanding of the fallouts of the pandemic and the learning from the coping and management responses so far, this article first identifies some necessary elements and notions critical in shaping the post-pandemic development paradigm. The article also examines India’s post-COVID-19 economic package to understand the gaps and the elements we need to build further on for greening the economic recovery. This analysis has benefitted from inputs and insights received from the representatives of industry and subject experts through a webinar and a survey based on a structured, open-ended questionnaire.
I. Introduction and Context
The COVID-19 pandemic is seen as the biggest health crisis and disruption since the Spanish flu, with profound impacts on every aspect of human life. Given the uncertainty around how deep this crisis is, these are still early stages to foresee the complete social, economic and geopolitical fallouts of the disruptions caused by the pandemic.
This is borne out by the fact that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has made a major revision in the global growth rate over a very short period of time. The IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO) report of April 2020 projected the global economy to contract sharply by –3 per cent in 2020, much worse than during the 2007–2008 financial crisis (IMF 2020a). In the WEO report released in June 2020, the global growth is projected at –4.9 per cent in 2020, 1.9 percentage points below the April 2020 forecast, and at 5.4 in 2021, as against 5.8 in the April 2020 report. For India, growth projections are at –4.5 and 6.0 per cent for 2020 and 2021 respectively. Given the origins of recent pandemics in environmental destruction, the post-COVID-19 development paradigm in India or anywhere else in the world needs to consider sustainable development.
Striving towards sustainable development has been the overarching goal of the international community since the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. Green growth and green economy as related concepts are considered as a subset of ‘sustainable development’, where measures of green growth and green economy have a greater focus on the economy and the environment through fiscal instruments, market instruments and technology. Pearce et al. (1989) in a landmark book, Blueprint for a Green Economy, argued that the basis for a green economy lies in understanding the interdependencies between the economy and the environment. Under the approach, measures put in place as a response to economic shocks are grouped in three broad categories: Green Keynesian; Green Schumpeterian; and Pigovian (The Energy and Resources Institute and Global Green Growth Institute [TERI-GGGI], 2015).
Bowen (2014) and Custers (2010) characterize the green growth paradigm as ‘Green Keynesian’, which fulfils the social criterion of promotion of employment (multiplier effect) and the ecological criterion of correcting market failures through countering capitalism’s inherent tendency to deplete and degrade natural resources. Green Keynesianism calls for fiscal measures to encourage shift from reliance on fossil fuels towards clean energy and technological interventions to discourage waste generation and promote resource efficiency. Many analysts agree with a stronger role of the ‘state’. After the 2008 financial crisis, many scholars framed the green fiscal stimulus as ‘Green Schumpeterian’, whereby scholars argue for policy interventions like green stimuli that promote technological advancement in renewable energy and environmental technology in response to economic crisis (Larcom & Swanson, 2011; Samad & Manzoor, 2011; Smith, 2012; Van Der Ploeg & Withagen, 2013). These authors argue for the greening of national industrial policies to focus on sustainable production and consumption to bring disruptive changes in resource-intensive systems. Shkarupa et al. (2016) argue for national innovation systems and for ecological modernization, and Swain (2014) suggests the greening of industrial policy. Jänicke (2012) discusses the growing eco-industry and resulting interventions for economic sustainability, including the phasing out of environmentally unsustainable practices. Another perspective is the ‘Pigovian’ perspective, which recognizes that there is a need for policy instruments such taxes to address the various market imperfections that fail to internalize environment-related externalities (Bowen & Fankhauser, 2011). The role of the ‘state’ or governments is the key under all the three categories of Green Keynesian, Green Schumpeterian and Pigovian. This is also demonstrated by the measure put in place in response to the 2008 financial crisis, which is discussed later in the article.
Although it is too early to draw lessons for future economic models and social contracts both internally and at the global level, the past few months have been of great learning and, in many ways, pointers to certain transformational shifts, towards some of which we may have already set our sails, and many such steps will follow, for instance, models of work from home, online delivery of several health- and education-related services, governance, social security, technological solutions for nationwide communication and surveillance, which have sprung up in the past 3–4 months.
First, this article discusses the method followed in this study (Section II). Building on an initial understanding of the fallouts of the pandemic and the learning from the coping and management responses so far, the article identifies some necessary elements and notions critical in shaping the post-pandemic development paradigm (Section III). We then examine the related elements of the recovery packages provided by a number of countries in addressing the 2008 crisis and how well they had delivered on their objectives. This is based on the analysis of 162 economic measures announced during the 2008 financial crisis. The 162 measures are analysed to examine the lessons that may be relevant to the present context (Section IV). Then, we critically examine India’s post-COVID-19 recovery package to understand the gaps and the elements we need to build further on for greening the economic recovery (Section V). This analysis benefitted from inputs and insights from the representatives of industry and subject experts (Section VI). Section VII concludes the article.
II. Research Questions and Methods
The objective of this article is to discuss key imperatives for greening economic recovery in India which will help in shaping the post-COVID-19 development paradigm in the country. By examining the experience in India and around the world, this article aims to contribute to the emerging body of knowledge on post-COVID-19 development. Research questions covered include:
RQ 1: What key elements and notions are critical in shaping the postpandemic development paradigm?
RQ 2: What lessons can be drawn from the 2008 financial crisis in terms of greening economic recovery packages?
RQ 3: How can India’s post-COVID-19 recovery package be made more responsive to the needs of environmental sustainability?
The approach taken in this study involves mixed methods involving quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis is based on the analysis of 162 green fiscal and economic measures announced during the 2008 financial crisis. A database for these 162 measures is prepared, and the fiscal measures are classified in various categories based on types of instruments, such as government spending. Once the analysis of these measures is undertaken, qualitative inputs are sought from representatives of industries and also from subject experts. A structured, open-ended questionnaire is used. Figure 1 depicts the break-up of the respondents’ profiles.
III. Elements and Notions Critical in Shaping the Post-pandemic Development Paradigm
Global Treaty for Controlling Such Health Crises
According to O’Callaghan-Gordo and Antó (2020), COVID-19 and many zoonotic infectious diseases of recent times have had origins in environmental degradation and climate change. Thus, the response to the pandemic must not only consider the health of humans but also the planetary health. This recognition can be the necessary starting point in guiding the choice of public policies, as well as those of economic actors, financial sector and producers and consumers towards preservation of natural ecosystems.
Three major causes of zoonoses (a disease which can be transmitted to humans from animals) have been highlighted: (a) increased risk due to the consumption and trade of wild animals; (b) land use change through deforestation, thus narrowing safe distance with the wild; and (c) the human body being more vulnerable to some zoonoses due to a decrease in immunity (WHO, 2012). The common thread between these appears to be the present models of production and consumption, which in the globalization era may have become more and more specialized and thus environmentally unsustainable.
Crossley (2020) argues that the role of development cannot be undermined in fighting poverty and hunger, and therefore there is a need to emphasize the role of development in finding a solution to such events, and that the ‘ecological anxiety disorder’ should not allow losing sight of the reasons for consumption and trade in wildlife. The regulation and modernization of animal agriculture, which can vastly lower the risk of zoonotic diseases, should be on the table as a possible solution.
This clearly is a complex multidisciplinary issue that needs more scientific research in finding appropriate measures to control such crises. Given that the nature of the disease is global and trade in wild animals is likely to be the origin of this pandemic and other diseases in the past, a global treaty would be required, notwithstanding endless hurdles in this process.
Need for Resilient and Just Social and Economic Systems
An important lesson during the pandemic that has deeply touched our lives is compassion and coexistence. We need to further build upon this notion of empathy to achieve just economic, social and governance systems. This can happen when we do not limit these concepts as merely falling in the purview of civil society during difficult times but systematically explore them for building up efficient and scalable businesses, service delivery systems, institutions and governance models that are just and resilient.
For instance, recent initiatives and technological advancements such as Aadhaar, Jan Dhan and smartphone applications, which have been considered as some of the major achievements of the government, have at best partially served the purpose during the pandemic. We need political will and technological support to strengthen governance and empower people to cope better (portable social security). It is quite evident that the human suffering during the pandemic has not been due to financial or food grain shortages but more due to weak governance relating to weak systems and institutions.
It must be emphasized that this human-to-human compassion will need to be translated into human-to-nature compassion. We can draw lessons from different cultural and religious beliefs and good practices in this context. Some of the ways to internalize and integrate this in the development policies will require awareness of concepts of coexistence and compassion, which we have learnt during this pandemic.
Some examples of other learning include the work-from-home model, which works well for many sectors without compromising on work productivity, models for delivery of many health- and education-related services and the Aarogya Setu smartphone application for nationwide quick communication about and surveillance of the status of the disease. As is rightly understood, these make perfect economic sense, as well as having huge positive implications for climate change, ecosystems and the sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Rethinking Economic Models
Production and consumption systems need to be rethought. This emerges from the fact that nature can no longer be compromised and instead needs to be viewed as an asset class. Natural resources become assets when people have rights to access their benefits (Boyce, 2001).
Unsustainable production and consumption are perceived as systemic risks. We cannot afford to ruthlessly exploit natural resources, generate waste and clean up later. This old model is unsustainable. In particular, food production, distribution and consumption will require a systematic overhaul, not only from the point of view of land use but also from the perspective of conservation of biodiversity, health of agricultural ecosystems, risks and resilience of food systems against climate change and biodiversity loss and nutrition and health of people. Hence, the critical question is: what regulatory and fiscal and monetary policy changes are required to protect the environment in terms of conservation as well as for sustainable consumption and production?
The first step to achieve a systematic change is through integration of environmental goals and targets, risks and resilience in strategic planning, budgeting and fiscal and financial sector policies. To periodically measure, monitor and report on natural assets and identify course correction measures, strong institutional mechanisms should be in place.
Nature-based Solutions and Infrastructure
Infrastructure building is seen as a great enabler in achieving the SDGs. Investment in natural infrastructure has received little attention. The preconceived notion that technology can provide an answer to all issues is flawed. The importance of natural infrastructure in improving resilience against climate impacts, in sustaining livelihoods and in health has been proved beyond doubt. The present need is to evaluate and integrate these into development planning policies and programmes. This includes identifying areas where restoration measures are essential. This is especially relevant for hilly and coastal areas. Government support and practices that are harmful to, for example, wetlands and mangroves, agricultural and forest ecosystems, etc., should be identified and reformed. The need for clean air, water and sanitation for increased resilience to pandemics and other diseases, besides human development and empowerment, cannot be emphasized more. It is important to recognize systemic risks and identify the underlying causes. A sustained effort beyond stimulus is required in addressing and building resilience against these risks.
To conclude, the above list by no means is a comprehensive list of ideas and opportunities that the pandemic has thrown at us. This, at best, is an illustration of a perspective on the direction of policy shifts towards a resilient and just development paradigm. This viewpoint incidentally appears to be leaning towards green and tech-smart development. It also shares the broad sentiments of the stimulus packages rolled out post the 2008 financial crisis and the calls for greening the post-COVID-19 recovery packages.
For instance, Green Economy as a new policy paradigm was revived following the 2008 financial crisis, along with the idea of ‘green stimulus packages’, whereby large-scale public investment in specific sectors related to energy and environment could kick-start a green economy. Green recovery as a concept seems relevant globally, post COVID-19, as a means to push transitions towards sustainable, resilient and just social and economic systems. This is aptly illustrated in a letter titled ‘Green Recovery: Reboot and Reboost our Economies for a Sustainable Future’ dated 14 April 2020. In this letter, an alliance of European politicians, business leaders and environmental activists have urged nations to increase green investment in the bloc to develop ‘a new model of prosperity’ based on sustainability, protection of ecosystems and transformation of food systems (European Union [EU], 2020).
IV. International Experience From the 2008 Economic Shock
The global economic crisis in 2008 had resulted in a massive economic decline in economic activities across most of countries in the world. Nearly all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries suffered a fall in gross domestic product (GDP) and trade flows and increased unemployment rates due to the global economic crisis. The developing economies were not spared, as the crisis spread to the rest of the world through various transmission mechanisms such as the domestic banking sector’s exposure to the global financial markets, decline in world trade and reduction in global aggregate demand. In the ongoing crisis due to COVID-19, there will be a mammoth adverse impact on the Indian economy. Both the World Bank’s and IMF’s assessments of global growth present a grim picture as the global economy hits the worst recession since the Great Depression in the 1930s (World Bank, 2009).
We now analyse the economic stimulus packages as a response to the 2008 financial crisis based on the idea of ‘green stimulus’, whereby large-scale public investment in specific sectors related to energy and environment was seen as a means to kick-start a green economy (TERI-GGGI, 2015). Table 1 presents the economic stimulus packages and green components in 2009 for various countries. As shown in Table 1, People’s Republic of Korea had the highest share of green component in its fiscal stimulus package, followed by the European Union (EU) and China. India, back then, had a relatively small economic stimulus and no green component. Countries such as China and the Republic of Korea, which invested more on green technologies, went on to become leaders in these technologies.
|
Table 1. Economic Stimulus Package and Green Component in Countries Following the 2008 Economic Shock
A number of studies have documented the impact of green stimulus measures, and some of these are summarized here. The cumulative impact of all the green stimulus measures in the United States resulted in a rise in jobs from 2 million to 10.9 million between 2009 and 2012, with the majority of the increase occurring in 2011 (Mundaca & Richter, 2015). EU countries reported benefits in terms of market demand for clean energy and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (ECPI, 2016; Mission, 2020). Benefits in the case of China included increase in energy efficiency, reduction in pollution levels, increase in domestic demand of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and increase in green jobs (ECPI, 2016; Mission, 2020). In the case of Republic of Korea, while the share of renewable sources in generation grew by 2.2 per cent between 2006 and 2016, there was no significant reduction in coal dependence over this period (Jung, 2015). There is also uncertainly around the benefits in jobs created, as it has been difficult to distinguish between wind, solar PV, solar thermal power, nuclear power and coal-fired power generation (ECPI, 2016; Jung, 2015).
According to an analysis by IEA (2020), the most successful stimulus packages as a response to the 2007–2008 crisis were stimulus funding for interventions based on proven policy schemes, targeted technologies that were ready for deployment, tackling of structural barriers of investments and interventions considering the wider benefits, including social, energy security and industrial policy objectives.
Table 2 provides a break-up of green components of the stimuli by different instruments. It is shown that a total of 162 different types of instruments were used by different governments in the countries examined by us (Annexure 1).1 Direct government spending for various purposes dominated the narrative and accounted for over 86 per cent of the total expenditure. The component of loan-based measures was miniscule, to the tune of 1.9 per cent.
|
Table 2. Green Stimulus by Type of Instruments
In yet another categorization, measures can be further segregated into traditional investment by government and enabling support to support through spending in technology, research, subsidies and programmes (Table 3). It can be seen that the share of the latter category is higher at 67.3 per cent, indicating that a bulk of the measures focused on spending by the government.
|
Table 3. Break-up of Types of Stimulus Measures
V. Economic Recovery Measures Post COVID-19 Pandemic
International Responses to COVID-19
Central banks have taken a series of measures to provide liquidity to banks and markets, including additional longer-term refinancing operations or a reduction of minimum reserve requirements.
The US Federal Reserve has reactivated commercial paper funding facility to facilitate the flow of funding to corporates through short-term funding markets and established two facilities to support credit to large employers through loan and bond purchases in primary and secondary markets; it has also set up another facility to support lending to small businesses.
In order to safeguard the smooth transmission of monetary policy within the euro area, the European Central Bank (ECB) has launched the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP), a temporary asset purchase programme for private and public sector securities.
The Bank of England has launched a term funding scheme to support SMEs’ (small and medium enterprises) lending and the COVID-19 Corporate Financing Facility to support liquidity among larger firms, and is providing liquidity to the banking sector through expanding its liquidity facilities.
India Announced an Economic Package of ₹20 Trillion
Major rate cuts by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), such as in policy lending rates, cash reserve ratio (CRR) and liquidity coverage ratio, for providing cheaper cash to banks have been instigated.
Loan freeze for a period of 3 months on term loans has been permitted.
Provision of special windows for corporate borrowers and rural industries has been created.
To infuse more money into the monetary systems, RBI has been injecting additional liquidity in the banking system to keep bond yields down.
To attract foreign investors, and to secure access to global indexes, India has opened up a wide range of its sovereign bond markets to overseas investors.
To ease the fiscal deficit of state governments, state administrations have been permitted to borrow more for the present year.
To stabilize the capital market, all capital and debt market services have been exempted from the lockdown.
Figure 2 illustrates the comparative picture of economic packages in terms of spending by some developed and emerging countries as a percentage of GDP in response to COVID-19.
Source: IMF in Statistica (2020).
Notes: *Percentage calculated by Statista using values provided by the source.
**Includes additional spending by state governments on fiscal stimulus measures, but does not include increased spending on the health system as a result of COVID-19.
***Does not include second amendment to extend the scope of the State aid Temporary Framework adopted on 8 May 2020, as amounts not provided by the source.
****Does not include additional spending on health infrastructure.
As of June 2020, most G20 member countries had committed to fiscal stimulus packages as a response to the coronavirus pandemic. Among the G20 countries, Japan, with a spending of ¥117.1 trillion, had the largest fiscal stimulus package in terms of spending, which amounts to about 21.1 per cent of its GDP (Statistica, 2020).
How Does India Fare?
India’s prime minister announced a special economic package for ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ or a ‘self-reliant’ India which would better integrate India with the world. The package is to the tune of ₹20 trillion, which is about 10 per cent of India’s GDP (GOI, 2020) (Table 4). The package has five pillars: economy; infrastructure; system; vibrant demography; and demand. The economic package is expected to cover land, labour, liquidity and laws. The package is focused on agriculture and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and rightly so, as these are the main drivers of the Indian economy. This is a marked shift in thinking that used to see cities as engines of growth and thus emphasized investment in cities. For the agriculture sector, some long-pending reforms have been announced, and at the same time, there is a push for investment in infrastructure. Both are welcome moves but need to be backed by a change in the mindset and capacities of institutions that can make a difference on the ground by implementing them in the right manner. While reforms have been announced for MSME and provisions for credit has been made by adding one more layer between the banks and MSMEs banking with the hope that the understanding of MSMEs market and business is better of intermediary institutions is better than that of the banks. MSMEs too have a lot of catching up to do in terms of streamlining of tendering, procurement, supply chains, digitization, technology, etc. Many of the smaller ones will need nudging and hand-holding. Are financial intermediaries equipped with the mindset and capacity to rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
|
Table 4. Economic Package by the Indian Government in Response to COVID-19
Table 5 provides a comparative assessment of short-term relief measures across various economies as a response to COVID-19.
|
Table 5. Short-Term Relief Measures to Combat COVID-19
Notwithstanding the differing views on the size of the economic package, ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ as a concept of change in development paths seems to have the potential to deliver on green growth. Although the concept needs to be unlocked more going forward, for now, it is clear that agriculture and allied sectors and MSMEs will get a renewed focus. On face value, this also appears in sync with the thinking of EU political alliance, although clearer interpretations of the two will inform the debate on such comparisons further. Yet these give us sufficient basis to believe that deep structural and policy changes could on the anvil to watch out for in the country in terms of opportunities contained in these provisions for green, resilient, just, and sustainable development.
VI. Framework for Greening the Economic Recovery in India: Insights From Expert Consultations
To understand the perspectives of stakeholders on the economic package announced by the government of India, as well as on the long-term vision for economic development, and as a validation exercise for our review of international experience, we consulted academics, subject experts and industry representatives through a webinar. Some of the important findings from the stakeholder consultation are listed below:
There were no conflicting viewpoints among the respondents, and all of them felt that the present pandemic situation should be leveraged to realize the SDGs and NDC (Nationally Determined Contributions) commitments.
SDG-aligned budgeting or green budgeting can be used as a framework for better alignment of government spending on environmental objectives and the SDGs. This will be a good starting point in eventually moving towards the integration of environmental concerns and concepts into development planning and budgeting.
The government should incentivize green industries. For improved environmental outcomes, relevant policies need to be aligned and the state- and local-level institutions strengthened.
According to large companies, international investors and financial institutions are becoming conscious of ESG (environment, social and governance) parameters. Encouraging the industries to follow ESG requirements would also attract more investors. Respondents from the industry were in favour of institutionalization of transparent self-reporting mechanisms of agreed parameters, including risks to industry and the environment. Data should also be comparable for various parameters.
If a green recovery path has to be pushed, the government will need to stimulate market demand for environmental goods and services. Incentives linked to the adoption of green labels (Eco-mark, ZED [Zero Defect, Zero Effect] and other internationally accepted labels) hold potential.
Investment in green infrastructure, such as cold storage facilities for farm produce, locally sourced transport fuel, renewable energy projects, resource efficiency, micro-grids and special economic zones, focusing on environmental goods and services would be needed. There is a need for creating holistic incentive packages for green MSMEs which include not only financial incentives but also the facilitation of intellectual property–based resources and marketing support to green MSMEs. According to some stakeholders, setting up a fund for greener MSMEs looks promising.
There can be some increase in taxes in luxury sector items and items that have harmful impacts on health and the environment.
Table 6 presents a snapshot of potential green recovery measures across sectors based on the consultations and review of international experience.
|
Table 6. Potential Green Recovery Measures Across Sectors in India
VII. Conclusion
The pandemic period has been a time of great learning. Coping measures that sprung up during this time should in many ways be seen as pointers to the transformational shifts—both permanent and temporary—towards some of which the world and India may have already made the first moves, and many more of which will follow. Building on the learning so far, the article identifies some necessary elements and notions critical in shaping the post-pandemic development paradigm. Some of these not only find an echo in the post-COVID-19 economic package rolled out in India but are also in sync with self-reliance or the ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ and ‘vocal for local’ calls by the prime minister of India. Successful implementation of various measures announced will be critical, given that India does not have much to showcase on this front. The package has not given much attention to the building blocks of implementation—institutional capacity, technology, scientific research, innovative business and delivery models—especially in the context of agriculture and MSMEs, which are the two focus sectors of the economic package. Also, as the concept of self-reliance is fully unpacked going forward, it will need to be nuanced such that it does not imply nationalization, which can be more damaging to the environment and economy.
While some transitional shifts will emerge organically and will need support and participation from the central and state governments to flourish; the transformational shifts will require a purposive and policy nudge from the government. The rationale for greening economic packages in India emanates from the fact that government interventions are required to nudge practices from ‘business as usual’ to a more sustainability-focused development path. The sustainability agenda must be seen not as a ‘disruptor’ but as a ‘corrector’.
A review of international experience shows that in the medium and long term, if recovery packages are targeted well, these can be used as means to promote environmental sustainability by nudging industry players to upgrade technologies, adopt government norms and inject investments into developing environmental goods and services that would have markets in the near future. There is strong evidence to suggest that the economic packages provided in response to the 2008 financial crisis produced the intended results in some countries. Indian policymakers too can learn lessons from this experience and design stimulus packages with investments (including public expenditure) targeted at interventions in India that include proven policy schemes, targeted technologies that are ready for deployment, tackling of structural barriers of investments, energy policy, industrial policy and interventions considering wider socio-economic benefits.
The consultation exercise reveals that while governments are expected to focus more on immediate relief measures in the short term, the attention should gradually shift to implementing medium- and long-term reforms in factor markets, and reforms for the correction of externalities to incentivize environmentally sustainable choices for transformational shifts. ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ as a concept of fundamental change in development paths indicates the necessity for sustained effort beyond the recovery package. On face value, it appears in sync with the thinking of EU political alliance. Clearer interpretations of both will inform the debate on such comparisons further. Yet these give us sufficient basis to believe that deep structural and policy changes are be on the anvil to watch out for in terms of how policymakers bring about policy reforms to nudge the country towards green, resilient, just, and sustainable development.
Acknowledgements
The present article draws heavily from a co-authored paper of Kedia et al. (2020), ‘Greening post COVID-19 economic recovery in India: A case for green fiscal stimulus’, May 2020. Discussion Paper, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI). Detailed acknowledgements in that discussion paper apply here as well. We thank Souvik Bhattacharjya (TERI), Jonathan Donald Syiemlieh (TERI), Saswata Chaudhury (TERI), Mani Juneja (TERI), Manish Anand (TERI), Swati Ganeshan (TERI) and Nitin Bajpai (TERI), all of who contributed to sectoral inputs in the discussion paper. We also thank Mr Arupendra Nath Mullick of TERI Council for Business Sustainability for facilitating consultations with the business and industry sector in India.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
|
Annexure 1. Green Stimulus Measures Announced After the 2008 Financial Crisis
Notes
1.
Information from 21 countries is collated; these countries include Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, People’s Republic of China, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.
References
| Barbier, E. B. (2010). Global governance: The G20 and a global green new deal. Department of Economics & Finance, University of Wyoming. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Bowen, A. (2014). Green growth. In Atkinson, G. (Ed.), Handbook of sustainable development (pp. 237–251). Edward Elgar. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Bowen, A., Fankhauser, S. (2011). The green growth narrative: Paradigm shift or just spin? Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1157–1159. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Boyce, J. (2001). From natural resources to natural assets. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 11(3), 228–267. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
| Business Line (2020). Comparing India with the rest of the world. Hindu Business Line, 14 May 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/stimulus-package-coronavirus-nirmala-sitharaman-finance-minister-narendra-modi-world/article31580614.ece Google Scholar | |
| Crossley, É. (2020). Ecological grief generates desire for environmental healing in tourism after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 1–11. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Custers, P. (2010). The tasks of Keynesianism today: Green new deals as transition towards a zero growth economy? New Political Science, 32(2), 173–191. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| ECPI (2016). South Korea move from green economy to creative economy. Seoul: ECPI. Google Scholar | |
| EU (European Union) (2020, March). Taxonomy: Final report of the technical expert group on sustainable finance. EU. Google Scholar | |
| GOI (Government of India) (2020). PM’s address to the Nation on 12.5.2020. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pms-address-to-the-nation-on-12-5-2020/?comment=disable&tag_term=pmspeech. Google Scholar | |
| GPRC (Government of the People’s Republic of China) (2009). China’s stimulus helps meet green goals. http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/jjmy/t560080.htm. Google Scholar | |
| HSBC (2010). Delivering the green stimulus. HSBC Climate Change & Global Research. Google Scholar | |
| IEA (2020). Green stimulus after the 2008 crisis: Learning from successes and failures. IEA. https://www.iea.org/articles/green-stimulus-after-the-2008-crisis. Google Scholar | |
| ILO (International Labour Organization) (2010). Green stimulus measures. ILO. Google Scholar | |
| IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2020a). The great lockdown through a global lens. IMFBlog. IMF. Google Scholar | |
| Jänicke, M. (2012). “Green growth”: From a growing eco-industry to economic sustainability. Energy Policy, 48, 13–21. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
| Jung, Y.-M. (2015). Is South Korea’s green job policy sustainable? Sustainability, 7(7), 8748–8767. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Kedia, S., Sinha, R., Pandey, R., . (2020). Greening post COVID-19 economic recovery in India: A case for green fiscal stimulus. Discussion Paper, New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute and Global Green Growth Institute. Retrieved September 12, 2020, from https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/GER_dp_0.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Larcom, S., Swanson, T. (2011). Economics of green economies: Investment in green growth and how it works. In Dupuy, P.-M. (Ed.), Harnessing foreign investment to promote environmental protection incentives and safeguards (pp. 97–128). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
| Mission2020 (2020). Green stimulus: Case studies from 2008–2009. https://mission2020.global/wp-content/uploads/Green-stimulus_-case-studies-from-2008-2009.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Mundaca, L., Richter, J. L. (2015, February). Assessing ‘green energy economy’stimulus packages: Evidence from the US programs targeting renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42(2015), 1174–1186. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| O’Callaghan-Gordo, C., Antó, J. M. (2020). COVID-19: The disease of the anthropocene. Environmental Research, 187(2020), 109683–109683. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
| Pearce, D. W., Markandya, A., Barbier, E. (1989). Blueprint for a green economy. Earthscan. Google Scholar | |
| Samad, G., Manzoor, R. (2011). Green growth: An Environmental technology approach. Pakistan Development Review, 50(4), 471–490. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Shkarupa, O. V., Karintseva, O. I., . (2016). Innovation potential of ecological modernization for green growth of economics: A case study. International Journal of Ecology and Development, 31(1), 73–82. Google Scholar | |
| Smith, L. (2012). Are green and growth compatible? Environmental Law and Management, 24(1), 11–16. Google Scholar | |
| Statistica (2020). Value of COVID-19 stimulus packages in the G20 as share of GDP 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107572/covid-19-value-g20-stimulus-packages-share-gdp/ Google Scholar | |
| Strand, J., Toman, M. (2010). “Green stimulus,” economic recovery, and long-term sustainable development. World Bank. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Swain, A. (2014). India’s green industrial policy: Pursuing clean energy for green growth. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(9), 19–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24479168 Google Scholar | |
| TERI-GGGI (2015). Green growth and sustainable development in India. TERI and GGGI. Google Scholar | |
| Van Der Ploeg, R., Withagen, C. (2013). Green growth, green paradox and the global economic crisis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 116–119. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| WHO (2012). Climate change and infectious diseases. WHO. Google Scholar | |
| World Bank (2009). Republic of Korea’s green stimulus. World Bank. Google Scholar |
