INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY, ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EU COUNTRIES

Transcription

1 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY, ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EU COUNTRIES IACOBUŢĂ Andreea 1, GAGEA Mariana 2 1 Junior teaching assistant Ph.D., Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University, Iasi, Romania, andreea_iacobuta@yahoo.com 2 Assistant professor Ph.D., Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University, Iasi, Romania, marygag2002@yahoo.com Abstract: It is often maintained that institutional quality lies at the bottom of achieving sustainability at national level. This paper analyses the relationship between economic freedom, as a measure of institutional quality, and sustainable development in EU-27 countries. We use the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Index of Economic Freedom and Sustainable Society Index with their components as variables and principal components analysis, as statistical method. The empirical results are consistent with the theory that economic freedom, mainly property rights, business freedom and freedom from corruption are positively or negatively significantly correlated with components of sustainable development. Key words: institutions, economic freedom, property rights, human development, sustainable society. JEL classification: F43, O15, P14, Q01, Q Introduction The relationship between institutions and economic growth in all its aspects was and still is a noteworthy subject for economists to debate on. Also, increasing attention is being paid to the relationship between institutions and sustainable development (Sharp, 2002; Veeman & Politylo, 2003; Anderson & Huggins, 2004; Morita & Zaelke, 2005). Institutions are considered essential for the European Sustainable Development Model in order to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States (Maastricht Treaty, 1992, p. 2). Several international organizations draw attention on role of institutions and good governance as one of the most important ways that current generations can contribute to sustainable development over the longer term by ensuring the stable functioning of societies and economies, encouraging innovation and creativity and providing the framework within which all citizen can achieve their potential (OECD, 2002, 4). Moreover, sustainable development becomes not a matter of resources scarcity but one of good institutions scarcity. Taylor (1993, 10) writes that the size of our resource pie is determined not by nature but by the social and economic institutions ( ). Liberal societies, built on free markets and open inquiry, create resources and expand the possibilities of mankind (quoted in Anderson & Huggins, 2003, 66). Thus, it is considered that the ability of a country to follow sustainability paths largely depends on the quality of its institutions. However, one challenge arises namely, to find a way to quantify the quality of institutions. The literature uses in this direction indices of economic freedom: Economic Freedom of the World Index (Gwartney, Holcombe & Lawson, 2004; Norton, 1998a; Norton, 1998b); Index of Economic Freedom (Hayward, 2002) etc. and appreciates that the economic freedom of a country provides the premises for sustainable development. This paper analyzes this hypothesis both from a theoretical perspective and empirically, using data describing economic freedom and sustainable development for EU-27 countries. We use the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Index of Economic Freedom and Sustainable Society Index with their components. The statistical method used in the paper to test the relations between economic freedom and sustainable development is principal components analysis (PCA). This multivariate method is justified by 325

2 data set dimensions since using it the dimensionality of original data is reduced by creating principal components (Schott, 2006). The new variables allow a more facile interpretation of original data. The results confirm the relations existing between several components of economic freedom, such as Business Freedom, Freedom from Corruption and components of sustainable development such as Education Opportunities, Good Governance, Unemployment, Population Growth, Public Debt, Personal Development, and Sustainable World. Data are recorded at country level for all 27 EU Member States, the reference year being Data sources are the sites of Heritage Foundation ( and of Sustainable Society Foundation ( Statistical data processing was conducted using SPSS software. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Economic freedom - a measure of institutional quality The scientific literature of the last 30 years unceasingly underlines the relation between institutions and a country s level of development from different perspectives (economic, political, psycho-sociological etc.). Empirical studies found significant statistical correlations between various elements of the institutional framework and the different economic performances of countries. In other words, the presence of adequate or high-quality institutions is a necessary condition for economic growth. High quality institutions are being recognized as those consistent with free trade, limited government, secure and enforced private-property rights, a sound legal environment and a stable monetary system (Corey, 2009, p. 8). All these elements are components of an overall country s economic freedom. In liberal tradition, since Adam Smith, economic freedom has proven to be the best path to prosperity and progress and a measure of a country s institutional structure. Consequently, there have been many attempts to quantify the degree of a countries economic freedom. The difficulty of providing an exact measure derives from the fact that freedom is rather qualitative than quantitative. That is why, nowadays, we have a heterogeneous range of indicators which aim at quantifying economic freedom. However, they share several similarities since most of them include in their methodology the core elements of economic freedom: secure private property rights, rule of law, freedom of trade, limited government. Table 1 presents three relevant indices of economic freedom which are commonly used in empirical studies. Table 1 Relevant Indices of Economic Freedom Index Publisher Indicators/ Components Economic Freedom of the World Fraser Institute - Size of Government - Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights - Access to Sound Money - Freedom to Trade Internationally - Regulation of Credit, Labour and Business Index of Economic Freedom World Survey of Economic Freedom Heritage Foundation / Wall Street Journal Freedom House Source: Fraser Institute, Heritage Foundation, Freedom House - Business Freedom - Trade Freedom - Fiscal Freedom - Government Spending - Monetary Freedom - Financial Freedom - Property Rights - Freedom from Corruption - Labour Freedom - Investment Freedom - Political rights - Electoral Process - Political Pluralism and Participation - Functioning of Government - Civil liberties - Freedom of Expression and Belief - Associational and Organizational Rights - Rule of Law - Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights 326

3 Using the data provided by these indices, numerous researchers have empirically proven the benefits of economic freedom and, through it, the importance of institutional quality. For example, to mention only a few of the most recent ones, Feldman (2007) proves that economic freedom is likely to reduce unemployment. Bjornskov & Foss (2008) used Fraser Institute Economic Freedom Index to explain cross-country differences in the level of entrepreneurship (a core element of a market economy) and found out that the size of government is negatively correlated and sound money is positively correlated with entrepreneurial activity. Faria & Montesinos (2009) found a robust association between economic freedom and prosperity. The list of studies on this subject is much longer. Many researchers have devoted their time and efforts to the issue of economic freedom and its aspects. All in all, these studies have in common the fact that economic freedom, measured in different ways, can be a good predictor for a country s institutional framework and it certainly creates the premises for economic growth and development. The next section of the paper addresses the issue of sustainable development which, like economic freedom, is a multifaceted concept receiving a lot of attention in academic world and in policymaking Sustainable development Sustainable development has many meanings. The most commonly used and quoted definition is the one provided by the Brundtland Commission according to which sustainable development means the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland, 1987). In the years following Brundtland Commission s report, sustainable development has become a popular term and a multifaceted concept. A wide range of definitions, numerous strategies adopted at national or international level, numerous attempts to measure it have led to a sort of scientific fashion when it comes to sustainable development. Since the purpose of our paper is to analyze the relationship between economic freedom and sustainable development, we will try to review only some aspects that we consider necessary for this study. In this direction, we adopt the views according to which sustainable development can be defined in what it specifically seeks to achieve or/and in how it is measured (Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005). Thus, achieving sustainable development means making progress in each of its three dimensions: economic growth, social development and environmental protection (OECD, 2002). This way, the idea of sustainability is socially desirable, economically viable and ecologically sustainable (Nath, Hens & Devuyst, 1996, p. 98). As for the ways sustainable development can be measured, there have been developed hundreds of indicators more or less explicit, which try to assess progress towards sustainability. Table 2 presents several such initiatives. Table 2 Several Indices of Sustainable Development Indicator initiative Number of indicators Consultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators 46 Wellbeing Index 88 Environmental Sustainability Index 68 Genuine Progress Indicator 26 Global Scenario Group 65 Boston Indicator Project 159 Sustainable Society Index 22 Source: Adapted from R.W. Kates, T.M. Parris, A.A. Leiserowitz, What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values and Practice, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2005, p ; Sustainable Society Foundation. As with the indices of economic freedom, the indicators that measure sustainable development (presented above or many others that exist), although their calculation employs different methodologies, share several similarities. Almost all of them see sustainable development as a mix of economic, social and environmental aspects, in an attempt to detect both its complexity and its essence. The next section of the paper deals with the relationship between economic freedom and sustainable development by providing a brief review of theoretical and empirical studies on this issue. 327

4 2.3. From economic freedom to sustainable development As already pointed out, economic freedom, as a measure of institutional quality, is strongly correlated with the economic performance of a country. Also, numerous studies relate institutions with the ability of a country to achieve sustainable development in all its dimensions. For example, Veeman & Politylo (2003, p. 317) consider institutions as being pivotal in achieving growth and improved distribution of income and wealth, in understanding environmental degradation, and in seeking improved policy. Building on Friedman s case, Anderson & Huggins (2004, p. 60) argue that sustainable development is only possible in a legal system where property rights are well defined, enforced and transferable. On the contrary, weak legal and judicial systems where laws are not enforced and noncompliance and corruption are the worm undermine respect for the rule of law, engender environmental degradation and undermine progress towards sustainable development (Morita & Zaelke, 2005, p. 15). Moreover, empirical studies found significant statistical correlations between elements of economic freedom and various components of sustainable development. When analyzing the relationship between the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom 2002 and Environmental Sustainability, Hayward concludes that nations with freer economies have better records in improving environmental quality confirming that free markets and democracy are the best path to sustainability (Hayward, 2002, p. 2). The Fraser Institute s Economic Freedom of the World 2003 Annual Report concludes that the more economically free a country is, the greater is the level of human development enjoyed by its citizens (Fraser Institute, 2003). Using the same economic freedom index, Norton argues that strong property rights correlate with high environmental quality (Norton, 1998a) and reduced poverty (Norton, 1998b). All the aspects presented above confirm the fact that economic freedom, measured by various indices, brings a significant contribution to a country s sustainability. The next section of this paper will test this hypothesis using data which describe economic freedom and sustainable development at EU-27 level. 3. Statistical analysis of the relations between economic freedom and sustainable development in EU countries in Variables and method In this paper economic freedom is analysed using the indicators which correspond to the ten core components of the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal index of Economic Freedom namely, Business Freedom, Trade Freedom, Fiscal Freedom, Government Spending, Monetary Freedom, Investment Freedom, Financial Freedom, Property Rights, Freedom from Corruption, Labour Freedom. Sustainable development is measured by the aggregate indicators of the five components of Sustainable Society Index or by the simple indicators comprised in their structure: Personal Development (Healthy Life, Sufficient Food, Sufficient to Drink, Safe sanitation, Education Opportunities), Healthy Environment (Air Quality, Water Quality, Land Quality), Well-balanced Society (Good Governance, Employment, Population Growth, Income Distribution, Public Debt ), Sustainable Use of Resources (Waste Recycling, Use of Renewable Water Resources, Consumption of Renewable Energy), Sustainable World (Forest Area, Preservation of Biodiversity, Emission of Greenhouse Gases, Ecological Footprint, International Cooperation). We have also considered other two indicators to evaluate sustainable development respectively, GDP (thousand Euros) and Poverty Rate. The statistical method used in the paper to test the relations between economic freedom and sustainable development is principal components analysis (PCA). This method justified by data set dimensions, all variables being continuous quantitative ones. Using PCA we reduce the dimensionality of data by creating principal components from the original variables. These principal components are then used to identify and describe relations between variables and also similarities and differences between statistical units, from the perspective of the analysed variables (Pintilescu, 2007) Preliminary data analysis The preliminary analysis aims to verify the adequacy of data for a factorial analysis. We use Barlett s test of sphericity to test the null hypothesis that the variables in the correlation matrix of the population are uncorrelated, and the indicator MSA (Measure of Sampling Adequacy) of Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin to evaluate in which degree each variable may be predicted by all the other variables. The results obtained with SPSS, by including all initial variables in the analysis show a 2 significant value associated to Barlett s test of sphericity, with χ statistic, Sig = is smaller than 328

5 0.05 (conventional value), which means the null hypothesis of variables uncorrelation is rejected, and the considered variables are adequate for a PCA. The value of the indicator MSA of KMO (0.389), is smaller than 0.5, show that the solution obtained with PCA cannot be accepted (Richarme, 2001). The extraction communalities, that are estimates of the variance in each variable accounted for by the components in the factor solution, may also suggest unsuitable variables. One can notice that after extracting the factors, the variances of several statistic variables have small values which show the lack of correlation between those variables with the factorial axes and, consequently, we will eliminate them from the analysis Results and discussions The analysis proceeds by keeping only the significant variables. The results show a significant 2 value both for Barlett s test of sphericity, with χ statistic ( Sig = ), and for the indicator MSA of KMO (0.769), that is the solution obtained with PCA can be accepted. Table 3 Values of KMO test and statistic 2 χ KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy..769 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square df Sig. Source: Output obtained in SPSS with PCA After extracting the factors all the estimated variances of variables kept in the analysis have values of variances estimations greater than 0.5 and should be kept in the analysis as they all fit well with the factor solution. Factorial solution indicates variables grouping in 2 principal components which have an explicative power of approximately 70% of the total variance (table 4). We will analyze below the disparities of economic freedom and sustainable development in EU countries according to the positions of variables and of cases in the factorial plane determined by this first two components. The results obtained for the correlation coefficients between the variables and the factorial axes (table 4) and the graphical representation of variables in the two first factorial axes system (figure 1) point out that: the components of economic freedom namely, Property Rights, Business Freedom, Freedom from Corruption, positively correlated with several components of sustainable development such as Education Opportunities, Good Governance, Personal Development and GDP are situated in the positive quadrant of the first axis. The components of sustainable development, Population Growth and Sustainable World lie in the negative quadrant of the first factorial axis, negatively correlated with the variables located in the positive quadrant of the axis. Table 4 Variables coordinates in the two first factorial axes economic_freedom Business_Freedom Government Spending Freedom From Corruption Property Rights Education Opportunities Good Governance Employment Population Growth Public Debt Personal Development Sustainable World GDP Component Matrix a Component Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted. 329

6 The second factorial axis is explained by Public Debt and Unemployment, components of sustainable development, and Government Spending, a component of economic freedom, all these variables being located in the positive quadrant of the axis. Figure 1 Variables positions on the first two factorial axes Component Plot 1.0 public_debt unemployment gov_spending 0.5 economic_freedom Component pop_growth sustainable_world prop_rights good_governance GDP business_freedom freedom_corruption education -0.5 pers_development Component 1 Source: Output obtained in SPSS with PCA Property Rights is an important explanatory variable for Personal Development, Good Governance, Education Opportunities, GDP with which it is positively correlated. As developed by Heritage Foundation, the indicator Property rights assesses the ability of individuals to accumulate private property, secured by clear laws that are fully enforced by the state. The private property is important in itself because it is an extent of individual personality and freedom. Consequently, well-specified and enforced property rights create the opportunities for development in all its dimensions, enhancing the well-being of population. Also, higher Business Freedom means better scores for Personal Development, Good Governance, Education Opportunities, GDP. Business freedom measures how free entrepreneurs are to start businesses, how easy it is to obtain licenses, and the ease of closing a business. In other words, business freedom stands for entrepreneurship development by permitting the exploitation of resources and business opportunities and channeling human efforts towards productive activities which, furthermore, are at the core of the socio-economic performance of a society. The same results are obtained when analysing Freedom from Corruption. Corruption is an institutional weakness, a major impediment for private sector proper development. All three components of economic freedom discussed above are negatively correlated with Population Growth. The results are in line with Norton (2002) conclusions according to which marketenhancing economic institutions lower fertility rates and, thus, limit the population growth. Also, wellspecified and enforced property rights, by enhancing economic growth, reduce fertility rates. The problem of population leads us back to history when hundreds of years ago, Thomas Malthus argued that population growth would lead to a lack of food supplies and limit the humanity standard of living. The same Malthusian pessimism is shared by more recent authors. For example, Grant (1996, p. 3) states that Population growth is leading us to a world that we do not want. It is the most fundamental of the engines of change, and the most ignored. The poor nations face sheer hunger and the destruction of their resources. The emerging nations, most of them in Asia, are in varying degrees escaping those horrors to face the problems of industrialization. The old rich countries confront joblessness, failing social structures, growing disparities between the rich and poor, ethnic conflict, the loss of a shared vision, 330

7 environmental degradation and the huge reality that they are changing the climate we all live in. Bringing population growth under control will not necessarily solve those problems, but it is the condition precedent a necessary condition for their solution (quoted in Norton, 2002, p.2). Overlapping of graphical representation of countries on the factorial map (figure 2) and variables map obtained with PCA (figure 1) permits us to identify some characteristics of economic freedom and sustainable development in EU countries. Thus, it can be noticed that countries that were integrated in the latest two waves lay on the left side of the plane, respectively Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia and Poland, being characterized through low values of the variables which lie in the positive quadrant of the first factorial axis (Freedom from Corruption, Business Freedom, Property Rights, Education Opportunities, Good Governance, GDP) and high values for the variables in the negative quadrant of this axis (Government Spending and Sustainable World). Situated in the opposing part of this axis, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg register the highest values for the variables in the positive quadrant of the first axis, which represent positive aspects for socio-economic and political situation of a country, and small values for the variables located in the negative quadrant (which show negative aspects for a country s situation). Countries location compared to the second factorial axis shows a positive situation for Belgium, France, Italy, Greece which are characterized by low unemployment, low public debt and low government spending. On the contrary, Estonia and Lithuania s position toward these variables indicates a less advantageous situation. Thus, it can be noticed that countries the countries that formed EU15 (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden), integrated in 1951 are located in the scatterplot defined by the first two factorial axes in the quadrants which show positive aspects of the analysed variables. On the contrary, the countries that were integrated in the EU in the latest two waves namely in 2004 (Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary) and 2007 (Romania, Bulgaria) are located in those quadrants of the axes which present negative aspects of the analysed variables. Figure 2 Countries positions on the first two factorial axes Estonia REGR factor score 2 for analysis Romania Bulgaria Lithuani Latvia Malta Cyprus Czech Re Slovakia Slovenia Hungary Poland Portugal Spain Luxembou Ireland Denmark Netherla United K Austria Finland Germany Sweden Belgium Greece Italy France REGR factor score 1 for analysis Source: Output obtained in SPSS 331

8 Moreover, from the point of view of the European distribution of economic freedom (figure 3), one can notice that the countries which are included in the upper categories ( free or mostly free ) such as Ireland, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden etc. are the ones which score better at all socio-economic variables. On the contrary, the countries included in moderately free category have a less advantageous socio-economic situation (Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania etc.). The positive relationship between economic freedom and prosperity is once again confirmed. Figure 3 The 2008 Index of economic freedom across EU countries 90,0 80,0 70,0 82,5 79,4 79,2 77,9 77,4 74,7 74,6 71,7 71,4 71,3 70,9 70,8 70,6 70,0 69,1 68,3 68,2 67,6 66,0 64,7 63,9 63,7 62,6 61,7 60,6 60,3 60,2 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 Ireland United Kingdom Denmark Estonia Netherlands Luxembourg Finland Belgium Austria Cyprus Lithuania Sweden Germany Slovakia Spain Latvia Czech Republic Hungary Malta France Portugal Bulgaria Italy Romania Greece Poland Slovenia free mostly free moderately free Source: Heritage Foundation/Wall Street, Index of Economic Freedom, Conclusions Starting from the fact that literature maintains a relationship between the degree of a country s economic freedom and its ability to achieve sustainability, this paper empirically investigated the correlations between economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom 2008 and its components, and Sustainable Society Index 2008 and its components, released by Sustainable Society Foundation for the EU-27 countries. The empirical results are consistent with the theory that economic freedom, mainly Property rights, Business Freedom and Freedom from Corruption are significantly correlated with components of sustainable development. There is a positive correlation between Business Freedom and Freedom from Corruption with Personal Development, Good Governance, Education Opportunities, and GDP and a negative one between the three components of economic freedom and Population Growth and Sustainable World. The findings of this study also indicate that those countries with a higher degree of economic freedom have a better socio-economic situation. Also, the countries that were integrated in EU in the latest two waves, respectively Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia and Poland, are characterized through low values of Freedom from Corruption, Business Freedom, Property Rights, Education Opportunities, Good Governance, GDP and high values for Government Spending and Sustainable World. Based on the existing literature and on the results of our study and if we were to accept the fact that sustainable development can be defined as a call to maximize human welfare over time (Anderson & Huggins, 2004, p. 59), then free market in all its dimensions seems the best path to sustainability. This last conclusion may have implications at the level of decision-making since it suggests that efforts should be directed to the establishment of the rule of law. This means that the world needs simple, transparent, non-discriminatory, negative and general rules of conduct, applying equally to all (Sally, 2002, p.16). Achieving sustainable development does not necessary lie in strategies or standards. It mostly consists in developing and protecting those institutions which create incentives for human cooperation and which have proven to be a sure path to welfare and progress. 332

9 5. References Anderson, T.L.; Huggins, L.E. (2004) The Property Rights Path to Sustainable Development. In M. Wynne, H. Rosenblum, R. Formaine (eds.), The Legacy of Milton and Rose Friedman s Free to Choose, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, p Bjornskov, C.; Foss, N.J. (2008) Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity: Some crosscountry evidence, Public Choice, 134 (3 4), p Brundtland, G.H. (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press. Corey, J. (2009) Development in US States, Economic Freedom and the Resource Curse, Studies in Mining Policy, Fraser Institute. Faria, H.J.; Montesinos, H.M. (2009) Does Economic Freedom Cause Prosperity? An IV Approach, Public Choice, 141 (1 2), p Feldman, H. (2007) Economic Freedom and Unemployment around the World, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 74 (1), p Fraser Institute (2003) Increasing economic freedom leads to greater democracy and prosperity according to new report. Available at world.com/pess pdf. Grant, L. (1996) Juggernaut, Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press. Gwartney, J.D.; Holcombe, R.G., Lawson, R.A. (2004) Economic Freedom, Institutional Quality and Cross-Country Differences in Income and Growth, Cato Journal 24(3), p Hayward, S.F. (2002) Making Sense of Sustainable Development, National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No Heritage Foundation (2008) Index of Economic Freedom. Available at heritage.org/index/explore.aspx. Iacobuţă, A; Pohoaţă, I (2008) Is Sustainable Development Conceivable without Instituions? Evidences from Romania. Available at SSRN: Kates, R.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. (2005) What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values and Practice, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47 (3), p Morita, S., Zaelke, D. (2005) Rule of Law, Good Governance and Sustainable Development, 7 th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, Conference Proceedings. Available at Nath, B.; Hens, L.; Devuyst, D. eds. (1996) Sustainable Development, Brussels: Vubpress. Norton, S.W. (2002) Population Growth, Economic Freedom, and the Rule of Law, PERC Policy Series, Issue Number PS-24. Available at Norton, S.W. (1998a) Property Rights, the Environment and Economic Well-Being. In P. Hill, R. Meiners (eds.), Who Owns the Environment?, Rowman & Littlefield, p Norton, S.W. (1998b) Poverty, Property Rights and Human Well-Being: A Cross-National Study, Cato Journal 18 (Fall), p OECD (2002) Working together towards sustainable development: the OECD experience, OECD Policy Brief. Pintilescu, C. (2007) Analiză statistică multivariată, Iaşi, Ed. Universităţii Al. I.Cuza. Pohoaţă, I. (2003) Filosofia economică şi politică dezvoltării durabile, Bucureşti: Ed. Economică. Richarme, M. (2001) Eleven Multivariate Analysis Techniques: Key Tools in Your Marketing Research Survival Kit. Retrieved July 2007 from Sally, R. (2002) Whither the World Trading System?, Timbro. Available at Schott, J.R. (2006) A high-dimensional test for the quality of the smallest eigenvalues of a covariance matrix, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 97(4), p Sharp, B. (2002) Institutions and Decision Making for Sustainable Development, Working Paper 02/20, New Zealand Treasury. Stroup, R.L. (2004), Economic Freedom and Environmental Quality. In M. Wynne, H. Rosenblum, R. Formaine (eds.) The Legacy of Milton and Rose Friedman s Free to Choose, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, p Sustainable Society Foundation (2008) Sustainable Society Index SSI Available at 333

10 Taylor, J. (1993) The Growing Abundance of Natural Resources. In E. Crane & D. Boaz (eds.) Market Liberalism: A Paradigm for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Veeman, T.S.; Politylo, J. (2003) The Role of Institutions and Policy in Enhancing Sustainable Development and Conserving Natural Capital, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 5, No. 3 4, p *** (1992) The Maastricht Treaty, Text of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Available at 334