Content uploaded by Vishal Vishnu Ovhal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vishal Vishnu Ovhal on Jul 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dr. Ovhal Vishal Vishnu
Assistant Professor,
Master of Rural Studies, Shivaji University,
Kolhapur-416004.
Email: vishalovhal88@gmail.com
1. INTRODUCTION:
Around the seventy percent Indian population has been living in rural area to their
survival. Agriculture has major source of income for rural population. But agriculture is
not much profitable occupation to them due to uncertainty about nature. Resulting, rural
area cannot dominantly contribute in nation building. Moreover, rural people are doing
more straggle for existence than urban. Hence, improvement in the quality of life of rural
people is the important agenda of rural development programme. It may be possible
through sustainable rural development.
Rural development implies both the economic betterment of people as well as
greater social transformation. The basic objective of all rural development endeavors /
programmes has been the welfare of the millions. In order to achieve this, not only
planned attempts have been made to eliminate poverty, inequality in wealth distribution
but also to access the clean water and sanitation, along with maintain the good health
through cleanness and hygienic activities. A wide spectrum of programmes has been
undertaken so far, to alleviate rural poverty and ensure improved quality of life for the
rural population especially those below the poverty line. In the initial phase of planned
rural development, the concentration was on sectors of agriculture industry, education
and health. The Ministry of Rural Development places importance now on health,
education, sanitation, drinking water, housing and road so that the quality of life in rural
areas improves and the fruit of economic reform are shared by all sections of the society.
With time and experience, it is realized that accelerated and meaningful
development can be achieved only if people of the grass root are involved, “people’s
participation” has become the keyword in sustainable rural development. The
GREEN ECONOMY: IDEAL LIVELIHOOD MODEL
FOR SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT
participation of the people is necessary to provide better prospects for sustainable
development.
2. CONCEPT OF A GREEN ECONOMY:
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) defines a green economy as one
that results in “Improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly
reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” (UNEP, 2011, p. 16). In its
simplest saying, a green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive
economy. In a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public
and private investment that reduce carbon emission and pollution, enhance energy and
resource efficiency and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
3. STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM:
Around the seventy percent India population has been living in rural area to survive and
remaining is living in urban area. Rural livelihood system basically have depends upon
agriculture and allied sector such as forestry, animal husbandry, Dairy, Fisheries etc.,
Beside, Urban livelihood system have depend upon Industrial and Service sector.
Moreover, urban people can live better life than rural. Resulting, see the real share of
development is higher by urban than rural area. It difference is not shown in GDP.
Anyway, still we use the conventional macroeconomic indicators of GDP to
understanding the overall economic position of a country, but GDP does not properly
account real qualitative position of country. It only shows that quantitative growth of
particular country in respect to particular time period. Therefore, arise the need of use the
multidimensional parameters for accounting the sustainable development of all citizens
and all region. With this in mind, United Nation Environmental Programme has provided
essential and inclusive indicators for accounting the overall development of all regions.
Green economy model and its indicators may be substitute for present brown economy
model those have based on quantitative measurement such as GDP & GNP; its only
account the monetary value of goods and services (GDP).
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY
The major objectives of the present research study are as follows.
1. To assess the efforts of the developed as well as developing countries of the world
for attaining better livelihood through a green economy model.
2. To examine performance of India for better livelihood system.
3. To suggest the policy and recommendation for achieving ideal livelihood system
for sustainable development of India.
4. HYPOTHESIS OF THE RESEARCH STUDY:
1. India is not rigorous and rigid in achieving a better livelihood system.
2. India's performance is not good for better livelihood system than developed and
developing countries of the World.
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1. Methods of Research
The present research work depends on the time series secondary data provided by the
World Bank (National Development Indicators). This study considers the appropriate
indicators of better livelihood system at environmental point of view. These indicators
also bring about a comparative analysis with reference to the selected five developed and
five developing countries of the world. Therefore, it is purely an analytical and a
comparative type of research study
5.2. Sample Design
There are two groups of the selected countries, namely developing and developed.
First five countries from developed group of countries have selected for the study, these
are followed;
1. Australia (AUS)
2. Germany (DEU)
3. Netherland (NLD)
4. Norway (NOR) and
5. United States (USA)
Five countries from the developing group of countries have selected for the study,
are as follows;
1. Bangladesh (BGD)
2. China (CHN)
3. Mexico (MEX)
4. Pakistan (PAK) and
5. South Africa (ZAF)
5.3. Conceptual Framework
This research study highlights three essential indicator of betterment livelihood
system at environmental point of view.
6. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
6.1. Employment to Population Ratio:
Table No.6.1: Employment to Population Ratio
The Employment To Population Ratio, 15+, Total (%) (modeled ILO estimate)
Sr.
No YEAR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
IND Developed Countries Developing Countries
AUS DEU NLD NOR USA BGD CHN MEX PAK ZAF
1 2000 57 59 54 61 64 64 68 74 58 47 42
2 2001 57 59 54 62 64 63 68 73 58 47 43
3 2002 57 59 53 63 64 62 68 72 57 47 41
4 2003 58 60 52 62 63 61 68 72 57 47 40
5 2004 58 60 52 62 63 61 68 71 58 48 40
6 2005 58 61 52 62 62 62 68 70 58 49 41
7 2006 57 62 53 62 63 62 68 70 59 50 42
8 2007 56 63 54 64 65 62 68 69 59 51 42
9 2008 55 63 55 64 66 61 68 69 59 50 42
10 2009 54 62 55 64 64 58 67 68 57 51 40
11 2010 54 62 55 62 63 57 68 68 58 51 39
12 2011 53 62 56 62 63 57 68 68 57 51 39
13 2012 52 62 57 61 63 58 68 68 59 52 39
14 2013 52 62 57 60 63 58 68 68 59 52 39
15 2014 52 63 57 62 63 57 67 66 58 53 39
16 2015 52 63 57 62 63 56 67 66 58 53 39
C.G.R -1.00 0.44 1.00 -0.05 -0.07 -1.00 -0.07 -1.00 0.07 1.00 -1.00
MEAN 55 61 55 62 64 60 68 70 58 50 40
C.V 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00
(Source: International Labour Organization, Key Indicators of the Labour Market database
and World development Indicators-last updated: 19/07/2016)
In several countries, however, this is not yet a reality. Additionally to the
two hundred million folks out of work around the world, the International Labour
Organization (ILO) estimates that there are 900 million "working poor" earning
less than USD 2 every day. Several of them work twelve hours every day and are
still trapped in poverty. Even those with slightly better-paid jobs usually haven't
any safety net in place. Formal employment arrangements involving social
security payments are the exception in developing countries. People who lose
their jobs have no entitlement to social insurance like unemployment advantages.
The OECD estimates that almost half of all jobs around the world are on an
informal basis, with this figure rising to as much as 80 at some stage in certain
regions like sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. According to KfW Development
Bank, construction activities and rehabilitate infrastructure are contributed
directly to employment as a result of them almost always employ local employees
in the construction section. Additionally, such activities impact on employment
along the entire value chain as a result of construction materials and machinery
are needed to build roads for instance. So building roads don't solely have a direct
effect on job creation, it also impacts indirectly on suppliers. However, a third
type of employment effect is even more important: improved infrastructure,
however also more effective financial systems and educational institutions
facilitate the establishment and growth of firms that make jobs. The financial gain
generated as a result boosts demand among local traders, thereby making a cycle
that promotes the economy and employment (KFW Development Bank, 2016).
Above table no.6.1 presents the data of employment to population ratio of
selected countries from the entire world. In 2000, except the China remained
developing countries had provided less employment opportunity than developed
countries. About the India, nearly 50 percent population was suffering from
unemployed condition. However, this condition was better than developed
country of Germany at the same period. Out of selected 11 countries, 7 countries
failed not only grow the employment level but also stabilized it. On the other
hand, those countries' successesful in growing the employment level that
countries size of employment had smaller than developed and emerging country
such as Australia (average 61%), Netherland (average 62%), Norway (average
64%) and China (average 70%). In conclusion, Bangladesh and China have
success in providing consistently employment opportunity to their growing
populations than developed and other developing countries of the entire world.
Employment plays a crucial role in providing income and thereby level of
wellbeing of people. The comparative study reveals that the employment to
population ratio was higher in developed countries, which was 60 percent, on an
average. Except Bangladesh and China, all selected developing countries
employment population ratio was less than 60 percent. The same is the case of
India, in which employment population ratio was just 55 percent on an average.
Thus, developed countries were ahead in providing employment and thereby
human wellbeing than developing countries and India as well. This will help the
developed countries to reach towards the green economy.
6.2. Improved Sanitation Facilities:
Table No.6.2: Improved Sanitation Facilities
Improved Sanitation Facilities (% of population with access)
Sr.
No YEAR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
IND Developed Countries Developing Countries
AUS DEU NLD NOR USA BGD CHN MEX PAK ZAF
1 2000 26 100 100 100 100 100 45 45 75 37 65
2 2001 26 100 100 100 100 100 46 47 76 38 66
3 2002 27 100 100 100 100 100 47 49 77 39 67
4 2003 28 100 100 100 100 100 48 51 78 40 68
5 2004 29 100 100 100 100 100 49 53 79 41 68
6 2005 30 100 100 100 100 100 50 55 80 42 69
7 2006 31 100 100 100 100 100 51 57 81 43 70
8 2007 32 100 100 100 100 100 52 59 81 44 71
9 2008 33 100 100 100 100 100 53 61 82 45 72
10 2009 33 100 100 100 100 100 54 63 83 46 72
11 2010 34 100 100 100 100 100 55 65 84 47 73
12 2011 35 100 100 100 100 100 56 65 85 47 74
13 2012 36 100 100 100 100 100 57 65 85 48 74
14 2013 37 100 100 100 100 100 58 69 86 50 75
15 2014 38 100 100 100 100 100 59 71 87 50 76
16 2015 39 100 100 100 100 100 60 73 88 51 77
C.G.R 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00
MEAN 32 100 100 100 100 100 53 59 82 44 71
C.V 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 15 5.00 10 5.00
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitati
on -http://www.wssinfo.org/ and World development Indicators-last updated: 19/07/2016)
Sanitation is a comprehensive term and it means not over just toilets.
Sanitation will be understood as interventions that reduce human exposure to
diseases by providing clean surroundings in which to live. It involves both
behaviors and facilities that work along to form a hygienic environment.
Sanitation is important to the survival and development of children. Currently,
there are 2.4 billion people worldwide who don't use improved sanitation and 663
million who don't have access to improved water sources. 946 million people are
daily going to excretion on open (UNICEF, 2016). Whereas progress has been
made to enhance access to sanitation in some elements of the world, millions of
children in poor and rural areas have been left behind. Nevertheless, yet 1 in 3
individuals don’t use improved sanitation and 1 in 7 individuals practice open
defecation moreover one notable thing is India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Ethiopia and
Pakistan account for 75 % people are going to defecation on open space
(UNICEF, 2016). Without these basic wants, the lives of millions of children are
at risk. For kids below five, water- and sanitation-related diseases are one of the
leading causes of death. Every day, over 800 children die from preventable
diseases caused by poor water, and a lack of sanitation and hygiene. Such
condition, UNICEF’s water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) team work in over
100 countries worldwide to improve water and sanitation services, as well as
basic hygiene practices. Resulting, since 1990, 2.6 billion people have gained
access to improve sanitation and last year, nearly 14 million people with clean
water and over 11 million with basic toilets (UNICEF, 2016).
Above table no.6.2 exhibits the data of percentage of population access to
the improved sanitation facilities in selected developing and developed countries
of the world. Developed countries of the world have been a hundred percent
accessing to the improved sanitation facilities from the start of the study period
(Year 2000). Other hand developing countries of the world has been near to fifty
percent less accessing improved sanitation facilities (Average 56.83%) than
developed countries (100%). Ordinals developing countries have access to
improved sanitation facility average 82 percent in Mexico, 71 percent in South
Africa, 59 percent in China, 53 percent in Bangladesh, 44 percent in Pakistan
during the study period. One worrying thing about India, it has been accessed
averagely lowest (32%) improved sanitation facility than not, only developed
countries but developing and emerging countries also. Nevertheless, a favorable
change has been done by accessing improved sanitation facilities in developing
countries of the world compared to their previous percentage. But still Indian
government and citizens couldn’t aware about sanitation due to lack of spreading
proper education at lower layers of the Indian society. In conclusion, without
achieving the appropriate target of access to the improved sanitation facilities in
India. India shouldn’t success dream of the super power country in truth.
The data analysis adequately and clearly reveals that developed countries
are very much ahead in providing sanitation facilities, which stood at 100 percent.
But developing countries along with India are very much lagging behind in
supplying sanitation facilities to their citizens, which stood at 44 to 59 percent on
an average with exception of Mexico and South Africa. India was only at 32
percent sanitation facilities, on an average. This adequately proves that developed
countries have fully succeeded but developing countries along with India have
failed in providing sanitation facilities, thereby economic transformation and
consequently green economy.
6.3. Improved Water Source:
Table No.6.3: Improved Water Source
Improved Water Source (% of population with access)
Sr.
No YEAR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
IND Developed Countries Developing Countries
AUS DEU NLD NOR USA BGD CHN MEX PAK ZAF
1 2000 81 100 100 100 100 99 76 80 89 88 87
2 2001 82 100 100 100 100 99 77 81 89 89 88
3 2002 83 100 100 100 100 99 78 83 90 89 88
4 2003 84 100 100 100 100 99 78 84 90 89 89
5 2004 85 100 100 100 100 99 79 85 91 90 90
6 2005 86 100 100 100 100 99 80 86 91 90 91
7 2006 87 100 100 100 100 99 81 87 92 90 91
8 2007 88 100 100 100 100 99 81 89 92 90 92
9 2008 89 100 100 100 100 99 82 90 93 91 93
10 2009 90 100 100 100 100 99 83 91 93 91 93
11 2010 91 100 100 100 100 99 83 92 94 91 94
12 2011 92 100 100 100 100 99 84 92 94 91 95
13 2012 93 100 100 100 100 99 85 92 95 91 95
14 2013 94 100 100 100 100 99 86 94 95 92 96
15 2014 95 100 100 100 100 99 86 95 96 92 97
16 2015 96 100 100 100 100 99 87 96 97 92 97
C.G.R 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00
MEAN 89 100 100 100 100 99 82 89 93 90 92
C.V 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 6.00 3.00 1.00 4.00
(Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and
Sanitation -http://www.wssinfo.org/ and World development Indicators-last updated:
19/07/2016)
The MDG drinking water target, that calls for halving the proportion of
the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water between 1990
and 2015, was met in 2010, 5 years ahead of schedule. 2.6 billion Gained access
to improved sources of drinking water during this period. Whereas this
tremendous achievement, efforts ought to continue to give access to remaining
663 million people who still relies on unimproved water sources (surface water
from lakes, rivers, dams, or unprotected dug wells or springs) for their drinking,
cooking, and personal hygiene. The proportion of the world’s population with
access to improved drinking water sources increased from 76 percent to 91
percent globally between 1990 and 2015, surpassing the MDG target. Whereas
coverage is close to or on top of 90 percent in all developing regions of the globe,
with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania, wherever the coverage is
68 percent and 56 percent respectively, widespread disparities exist between
countries and across regions. There also are disparities between urban and rural
coverage, where a calculable 96 percent of the urban population globally used an
improved water supply in 2015, compared to 84 percent of the rural population.
This is much more striking when it involves piped water on the premises; to that
79 percent of urban dwellers have access, as opposed to just 33 percent of the
rural areas. The disparities are equally striking when it comes to people that
remain unsolved. 8 out of 10 people that don't have access to an improved source
for drinking water, live in rural areas. During 1990-2015, of the 2.6 billion people
that gained access to improved sources, 3.1 billion were in access to piped water
on premises that provide the highest level of health and other advantages. The
Urban share of those gains was 63 percent and 70 percent severely (WHO, 2016).
Above table no.6.3 revealed the data of percentage of population access,
improved water source in selected developed and developing countries entire the
world. It seems that developed countries has been accessing average 99.8 percent
improved water source and other hand developing and emerging countries
average accessing at 89 percent good water sources. That means found a 10
percent difference in access to the improved water between developed and
developing countries. In the selected developing countries, ordinal access the
improved sanitation sources at 82 percent in Bangladesh, 89 percent in China, 90
percent in Pakistan, 92 percent in South Africa, 93 percent in Mexico and 89
percent in India. Compared to the Islamic country of Pakistan and South Africa,
India not good performer for a green economy. But compared to previous
performance of India, certainly it has improved with coefficient of variation at 5
percent. In conclusion, except the Bangladesh, all selected developing countries
has good performed like developed countries (Australia, Germany, Norway etc.,)
in access the improved water source.
Access to drinking water indicates that developed countries have highly
succeeded by supplying drinking water to 100 percent population. The efforts of
the developing countries and India are also good, but not the best. They have
availed drinking water facility to between 82 percent to 92 percent population,
and India to 89 percent populations, is a thing of appreciation and satisfactory as
well. Thus both the developed as well as developing countries selected have
succeeded in providing drinking water, but good space is there in improvement
for developing countries as well as India. This will help both the developed and
developing countries in economic transformation and green economy realization.
6.4. Total Health Expenditure:
Table No.6.4: Total Health Expenditure
Health Expenditure, Total (Private + Public)
Sr.
No YEAR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
IND Developed Countries (% of GDP) Developing Countries (% of GDP)
AUS DEU NLD NOR USA BGD CHN MEX PAK ZAF
12000 4.31 8.07 10 7.96 8.42 13 2.64 4.62 5.07 3.02 8.29
22001 4.55 8.17 11 8.30 8.80 14 2.84 4.58 5.45 2.82 8.58
32002 4.45 8.39 11 8.87 10 15 2.98 4.81 5.62 2.99 8.49
42003 4.35 8.31 11 10 10 15 2.91 4.85 5.78 2.85 8.62
52004 4.56 8.57 11 10 10 15 3.01 4.75 5.98 2.81 8.91
62005 4.31 8.45 11 11 9.03 15 3.08 4.68 5.87 3.18 8.80
72006 4.09 8.49 11 11 8.56 15 3.24 4.55 5.68 3.67 8.53
82007 3.94 8.53 10 11 8.75 16 3.26 4.35 5.78 3.57 7.79
92008 3.99 8.78 11 11 8.55 16 3.28 4.63 5.84 3.38 8.04
10 2009 4.05 9.04 12 12 10 17 3.34 5.15 6.43 2.94 8.67
11 2010 3.82 9.02 12 12 9.42 17 3.52 4.98 6.33 3.02 8.66
12 2011 3.83 9.21 11 12 9.28 17 3.63 5.15 5.97 3.01 8.61
13 2012 3.81 9.36 11 13 9.28 17 3.54 5.41 6.10 2.77 8.92
14 2013 3.97 9.44 11 13 10 17 3.73 5.57 6.24 2.75 8.93
15 2014 3.72 9.47 11 13 9.37 18 3.78 5.31 6.39 3.03 8.71
16 2015 3.67 9.57 12 14 9.40 18 3.85 5.37 6.46 3.03 8.73
C.G.R -1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.28 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 -0.10 0.23
MEAN 4.09 8.80 11 11 9.30 16 3.29 4.92 5.94 3.05 8.58
C.V 7.00 6.00 5.00 16 6.00 9.00 11 7.00 6.00 9.00 4.00
(Source: World Health Organization National Health Account database-
http://apps.who.int/nha/database/DataExplorerRegime.aspx and World development
Indicators-last updated: 19/07/2016)
There’s a well-understood correlation that as the economy of a country
improves, so the health of its citizens improves. What could also be less obvious
is that the opposite is also true in improving the health of a nation’s citizens will
directly lead to economic growth; as a result, there'll be more people ready to
conduct effective activities in the workforce.
Health presents a challenge for all nations; according to study that a
median of eighty five percent of respondents believe it was a problem in their
country. Effective public health systems are essential for providing care of the
sick, and for instituting measures that promote wellness and prevent illness. In
several lower and middle-income countries, infectious diseases are our major
focus. HIV (AIDS), tuberculosis, and malaria, take a huge toll, both in loss of life
and reducing the workforce. Moreover, non-communicable diseases in developing
countries are growing (Francis, S. Collins, 2016). The World Bank reports that
fifty percent of the economic growth differentials between developing and
developed nations are attributed to poor health and low life expectancy. These are
diseases we generally come with wealthier countries (Francis, S. Collins, 2016).
Fortunately, technology makes it easier to prevent, detect and treat these
conditions. With the development of electronic health records, remote treatment,
and therefore the ability to share data online, we have an array of new health care
solutions available, even in low-income settings. The use of mobile technologies
to gather and distribute data has helped significantly with the prevention and
treatment of the malady.
Above table no.6.4 shows the total health expenditure (Public + Private)
on health infrastructure and services in selected countries of the world. Data are
showing the share of gross domestic product on health. Except the South Africa,
remained developing countries have been spending very less amount of budget
compared to developed countries of the world. Even though South Africa
(average 8.58%) has spent a greater amount of its budget on health infrastructure,
but this budget is very less compared to their geographical expansion and existed
poverty. During the research study period, it is found that developed countries
have been allocating their nearly 10 percent budgets for health, for instance
Australia (average 8.80%), Germany (average 11%), Netherland (average 11%),
Norway (average 9.30%) and U.S.A (average 16%) along with less coefficient of
variation. On the other hand, during the research study period, developing
countries averagely allocating budgetary resources like only 3.05 percent in
Pakistan, 3.29 percent in Bangladesh, 4.09 percent in India, 4.92 percent in China,
5.94 percent in Mexico and 8.58 percent in South Africa with low coefficient of
variation. In conclusion, developing countries have spent less amount of budget
on health than developed countries. Moreover, the unfortunate thing about India,
the compound growth rate of health expenditure shows negative 1 percent.
Health expenditure facilitates good health conditions, thereby human
welfare. The comparative analysis reveals that developed countries were
continuous and sincere in enhancing health condition by incurring health
expenditure and thereby human welfare and green economy as well. Health
expenditure of developed countries stood between 8.80 of GDP to 16 percent. But
health expenditure of developing countries was meager only, which stood
between 3.29 percent to 8.58 percent. The developing country of South Africa
was only good in health expenditure. The situation of India was bad only so far as
health expenditure is concerned, which was just 4 percent of GDP. Thus
developed countries were successful and developing countries got failure in
enhancing human wellbeing through health expenditure.
7. HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESULTS
Table No.10.1: Independent sample t-test (Two tailed test) at 95 Percent Confidence Interval
Sr.
No
Sub-Hypothesis
Degree
of
Freedom
T-
Calculat
ed Value
T-
Table
Value
P-
Value Mean
Difference
Decision
(Accept or
Reject)
Equal variances assumed
1
H0- No
significant CO2
is emitted by
developed
countries than
developing
countries 9 -.006 2.262 .995
(P>0.05) -9.20000
H0-Accept
Ha-Significant
CO2 is emitted
by developed
countries than
developing
countries
Ha-Reject
2H0-There is no
significant
contribution by
renewable
energy to green
economy in
developed
countries than
developing.
9 0.022 2.262 .983
(P>0.05)
2.68167
H0- Accept
Ha-Renewable
energy has
significantly
contributed to a
green economy
Ha- Reject
in developed
countries than
developing
3
H0-There is no
significant
expenditure
growth on health
in developed
countries than
developing. 9 4.218 2.262
.002
(P<0.05) 6.24167
H0-Reject
H1- There is a
significant
expenditure
growth on health
in developed
countries than
developing.
Ha-Accept
The results are significant at 0.05 percent significant levels for 09 degrees of freedom
8. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS:
Conclusions Relating to Indicator of Employment Generation.
1. In the developed countries, 60 percent of the population got employment at
consistent in supplying employment to their population as indicated by the C.V,
which is between 2 percent to 4 percent during the study period.
2. China was good (70%) enough in providing employment compare to other
developing countries of the world.
3. India could provide employment to 55 percent of working population. India failed
in generating and providing necessary employment to its people in the economy.
4. The employment to population ratio was higher in developed countries, which
was 60 percent, on an average. Except Bangladesh and China, all selected
developing countries employment population ratio was less than 60 percent. The
same is the case of India, in which employment population ratio was just 55
percent on an average. Thus, developed countries were ahead in providing
employment and thereby human wellbeing than developing countries and India as
well. This will help the developed countries to reach towards the better livelihood
for green economy.
Conclusions Relating to Indicator of Access the Sanitation Facilities.
5. All selected developed countries have achieved high percentage availability of
sanitation facilities.
6. Mexico and South Africa (82% & 71%) has significantly succeeded in improving
sanitation facilities than other developing countries into consideration.
7. The state of sanitation facilities in India is not very much happy and satisfactory.
The access to sanitation facilities in India is only to 32 percent.
8. Developed countries are very much ahead in providing sanitation facilities, which
stood at 100 percent. But developing countries along with India are very much
lagging behind in supplying sanitation facilities to their citizens, which stood at
44 to 59 percent on an average.
Conclusions Relating to Indicator of Access the Sources of Clean Water.
9. Hundred percent clean water sources accessing by selected developed countries of
the world.
10. Except Bangladesh all others developing countries have a good improvement in
access to water.
11. Access to water shows for India it is good, but not better which stood at 89
percent on an average, grew at only meager rate of 1 percent per annum with
consistency indicated by C.V of 5 percent.
12. Developed countries have highly succeeded by supplying drinking water to 100
percent population. The efforts of the developing countries and India are also
good, but not the best. They have availed drinking water facility to between 82
percent to 92 percent
Conclusions Relating to Indicator of Health.
13. All developed countries selected for study are spending significant health
expenditure.
14. South Africa was dominant in budgetory porovision and expenditure
(public+private) on health (8.58 of GDP), which was also followed by Mexico
(5.94%) and China.
15. India did not succeed in improving health conditions of its people, because it
incurred only meager health expenditure that stood at 4.09 percent of GDP.
16. Developed countries were continuous and sincere in enhancing health condition
by incurring health expenditure and thereby human welfare and green economy as
well. Health expenditure of developed countries stood between 8.80 of GDP to 16
percent. But health expenditure of developing countries was meager only, which
stood between 3.29 percent to 8.58 percent.
9. IMPORTANT SUGGESTIONS:
The important suggestions useful for dealing with the problems relating to green
economy are as follows.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
After the analysis of green economy in developed nations and developing nations
and in respect of India. The researcher has come to the conclusion that India is sincerely
and honestly trying to attain the green economy object. But when we compare the Indian
green economy model with developed nations like USA, Australia, Norway, Netherland,
etc,. Researcher observed that we are lagging compared to their green economy models.
Nevertheless, developed countries also failed in some green economy indicators such
GNI per capita growth, decentralization of renewable electricity generation, etc. and
developing countries have more significantly performed than developed nations in the
implementation of the green economy model in respect of some green economy
parameters.
1. REFERENCES
1. UNEP. (2010). Green Economy: Developing Countries Success Stories. Kenya:
United Nations Environmental Programme.
2. Wind Power Monthly. (2015). China to Connect 21.5GW of New Capacity in 2015.
Retrieved March 30, 2016, from www.windpowermonthly.com:
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1338971/china-connect-215gw-new-
capacity-2015
3. PV Magazine. (2015). China: PV installed Capacity Grows to Almost 30 GW in 2014.
Retrieved July 1, 2016, from www.pv-magazine.com: http://www.pv-
magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/china--pv-installed-capacity-grows-to-almost-30-
gw-in-2014_100018231/# ixzz44 Ns1 lPnT
4. UNICEF. (2016). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from
UNICEF: http:// www.unicef.org/wash/3942_43084.html
5. SF GATE. (2016). Importance of Renewable Resources of Energy. Retrieved July 6,
2016, from homeguides.sfgate.com: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/importance-
renewable-resources-energy-7969 0.html
6. Economics Discussion. (2016). Role of Agriculture in the Economic Development of
a Country. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from economicsdiscussion.net:
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/economic-development/role-of-agriculture-in-
the-economic-development-of-a-country/4652
7. Francis, S. C. (2016). Growing Importance of Health in the Economy. Retrieved July
16, 2016, from widgets.weforum.org: http://widgets.weforum.org/outlook15 /10.html
8. OECD. (2009). National Accounts of OECD Countries 2009. Retrieved July 12,
2016, from dx.doi.org: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/na_vol_1-2009-enfr
9. United Nations. (2011). Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Econom:
A United Nations System-wide Perspective. Environment Management Group.