MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407874177 · doi:10.1016/j.wds.2025.100211

On income inequality and CO2 emissions in Bangladesh

2025· article· en· W4407874177 on OpenAlexaff
Syeed Khan, Leanora Brown, Anupam Das

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Development Sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityEconomic inequalityNatural resource economicsEconomicsEnvironmental scienceDevelopment economicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• This is the first study that examines the relationship between income inequality and CO 2 emissions in Bangladesh. • In the long run, on average, income inequality tends to increase CO 2 emissions. • We use the political economy approach and the Veblen effect hypothesis to explain our results. • Policymakers could focus on redistributing income to address the widening income gap and emissions in Bangladesh. The United Nations called for a holistic approach to successfully achieve the sustainable development goals. In this study, we examine the association between two of those sustainable development goals, namely income inequality and emissions. More specifically, we analyze if income inequality is dynamically related to per capita CO 2 emissions in Bangladesh. We apply the autoregressive distributed lags technique while accounting for other important factors including national income, price, and urbanization. The dataset used in this study covers the period from 1980 to 2021. The results suggest long run cointegrations, running from income inequality to CO 2 emissions. Importantly, a one percent increase in the income share of the top 1% tends to increase per capita CO 2 emissions by 0.52%. These findings are consistent with the political economy theory and the Veblen effect hyopthesis. We provide policy suggestions which are relevant to Bangladesh and other developing countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Development SustainabilitySame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207