Economic Growth and Biodiversity: A Critical Review
This paper critically evaluates The Economist's article "The Effects of Growth: The Long View," which argues that economic development ultimately benefits biodiversity. The review summarizes the article's core claims — including comparisons between nations at different development levels, the role of intensive farming, and the relationship between prosperity and conservation policy — before assessing the argument's strengths and weaknesses. The paper finds merit in the article's novel perspective and evidence-based approach, while identifying significant gaps related to climate change, globalization, air pollution, and population growth. The reviewer concludes that economic development's adverse short-term effects and long-term consequences tend to outweigh the benefits the article promotes.
- Overview of The Economist's Argument: Summary of article's main claims and examples
- Economic Development as a Benefit to Biodiversity: How growth aids forests, farming, and conservation
- Merits of the Article: Credibility, novelty, and accessibility of the article
- Weaknesses and Gaps in the Argument: Climate change, farming, and shallow introduction critiqued
- Globalization, Population, and Ecosystem Stress: Mass development and population growth harm ecosystems
- Conclusion: Short-term harms outweigh long-term development benefits
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper follows a clear review structure: it summarizes the source article before moving into evaluation, which keeps the critique grounded and easy to follow.
- It identifies both merits and weaknesses, demonstrating balanced critical thinking rather than one-sided dismissal or acceptance.
- The critique engages with specific claims from the source — such as intensive farming and forest cover — and challenges them with counterevidence, showing strong analytical engagement.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source-based critical analysis: it accurately represents the original article's claims before systematically questioning each one. By introducing factors the source neglects — climate change, globalization, air pollution, and population dynamics — the reviewer builds a multi-dimensional critique that extends beyond simple disagreement into contextual reframing. This is a valuable technique for undergraduate essay and article-review assignments.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a detailed summary of The Economist's article, covering its main examples and claims across several paragraphs. It then transitions into an evaluation section that addresses merits first, followed by a multi-part critique covering climate change, intensive farming, and globalization as separate analytical threads. A brief conclusion synthesizes the overall judgment. The structure is logical and follows a standard article-review format appropriate for undergraduate coursework.
Overview of The Economist's Argument
The Economist's article "The Effects of Growth: The Long View" discusses, in brief, how the economic development of human societies is actually beneficial to biodiversity, in spite of some negative aspects linked to it. It begins with a comparison of two nations — South and North Korea — and the way their economics and politics contribute to local biodiversity, specifically the region's forest cover. An identical comparison is made of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, using the nations' gross domestic products (GDPs) to demonstrate impacts on biodiversity.
The second half of the article discusses how poverty poses the greatest challenge to biodiversity. It states that poverty has a greater adverse impact than human development on biodiversity, and remarks that poverty without economic growth, combined with an increasing population, proves disastrous to biodiversity. Meanwhile, even when growth accompanies poverty, the impact may be just as calamitous. However, once a society reaches a particular level of prosperity, growth-related advantages to biodiversity begin to outweigh its shortcomings (The Economist).
Economic Development as a Benefit to Biodiversity
The article argues that people have overlooked economic development's advantages to biodiversity. First, it highlights that after a particular period of development and the achievement of an approximate GDP threshold, forests will be better sustained than in nations where income or growth is lower. The actions of developed countries are described as having been effective in cleaning up local marine habitats and waterways. Another point raised is that intensive farming — farming that utilizes fertilizers and pesticides but not much land — employed by developed countries, saves larger areas of land for the remaining species in the ecosystem, compared to conventional farming techniques. A combination of clean water, increased habitable land, and sustained forests, brought about by economic development, greatly benefits other species as well as overall biodiversity (The Economist).
Growth is linked to other benefits as well. It advances societies intellectually and results in the creation of more effective conservation policies, which are further supported by capable state institutions. Economic development is also typically followed by scientific progress and a decrease in birth rates. The latter factor reduces competition for resources between members of a species. Furthermore, scientific development leads to environmental data gathering and analysis, which can make future conservation considerably easier. All of these factors combined can bring about a more habitable, less competitive environment for all species, including human beings (The Economist).
Merits of the Article
The Economist's report is rather interesting in its explanation of the benefits of economic growth on biodiversity. Limited literature exists to explain this phenomenon, as most authors address biodiversity's adverse impacts. Therefore, this report may be considered an enlightening piece on economic development's positive effects on biodiversity. It contains novel information that warrants further scholarly research.
Another merit is that the Economist makes considerable efforts to support its points by referencing research already conducted and demonstrated by other studies and authors, lending the report credibility and validity. The Economist has taken care not to cite unsubstantiated facts. Moreover, the article uses illustrations — pictures and graphs — that enhance the overall reading experience. The terminology used is straightforward and accessible to general readers. No reader, whether a layperson or a scholar, will have difficulty reading and understanding its contents.
Conclusion
It has been stated by Colman that competition within and between species is growing, and human beings are emerging as more dominant. Mankind consumes, pollutes, and destroys other species' habitats for a number of personal benefits, including survival. The report questions whether this expansion by humans is truly as great a threat as commonly believed. It claims that economic development has led to clean water, bountiful forests, more intelligent and efficient conservation policies, and more responsible agricultural practices. However, with factors such as air pollution, climate change, globalization, and increased intensive farming to consider, these advantages will likely not prove as effective as promised. Economic progress has devastating short-term effects, and its consequences will persist in the long run. Moreover, its adverse impacts tend to outweigh its benefits (Colman 4).
Works Cited
Colman, Jacob. Academia. 26 September 2013. Web. 6 May 2016.
The Economist. "The Effects of Growth." 14 September 2013. Web. 6 May 2016.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.