Cited by 47Climate Change Policy and EconomicsSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceEconomic Growth and Productivity

On Growth Projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways

Open access
Buhaug, Halvard, Vestby, Jonas·2019·Global Environmental Politics

Abstract

The recently developed Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) have enabled researchers to explore coupled human–nature dynamics in new and more complex ways. Despite their wide applicability and unquestionable advantage over earlier scenarios, the utility of the SSPs for conducting societal impact assessments is impaired by shortcomings in the underlying economic growth projections. In particular, the assumed economic convergence and absence of major growth disruptions break with historical growth trajectories in the developing world. The consequence is that the SSP portfolio becomes too narrow, with an overly optimistic lower band of growth projections. This is not a trivial concern, since resulting impact assessments are likely to underestimate the full human and material costs of climate change, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable societies. In response, we propose that future quantifications of the SSPs should incorporate the likelihood of growth disruptions, informed by scenarios of the relevant political contexts that historically have been important in curbing growth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/glep_a_00525

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SSP projections provide overly optimistic estimates of adaptive capacity and resilience, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the Global South, resulting in an underestimation of likely climate-related impacts of stability and growth in the future.

    “Consequently, these projections provide overly optimistic estimates of adaptive capacity and resilience, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the Global South, resulting in an underestimation of likely climate-related impacts of stability and growth in the future (189).”

    From Vicious Circles: Violence, Vulnerability, and Climate Change (2021) · cites this paper as [189]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buhaug, H., & Vestby, J.
Affiliations
  • World Bank (US)
  • Peace Research Institute Oslo (NO)
Venue
Global Environmental Politics
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2019-11
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
118-132
ISSN
  • 1526-3800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-0091
OpenAlex
W2980238391
Cited by
47
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Global Environmental Politics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
Keywords
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, economic growth forecast, economic convergence, growth disruption, social impact assessment, climate change impacts, developing countries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review