Search

This paper examines the risk transmissions across the green economy indices of three major regions which include US, Europe and Asia. The econometric analyses are conducted using DCC-GARCH and TVP-VAR connectedness approach to evaluate potential spillover effects within the context of oil and gold. Results indicate that green economy indices of US-Europe exhibit the greatest time-varying correlations among the three pairs during much of 2010–2022 consistent with that of the general equity market. However, co-movements during the COVID-19 pandemic period seem to display a change in pattern for green economy indices. The strength of the co-movements between the US and Europe displayed a declining trend, while that between US and Asia was strengthened, suggesting greater interdependence between these two markets. TVP-VAR connectedness analysis revealed that US and Europe dominate the transmission of the shocks across the years in the green economy, similar to that of the equity markets. However, during the pandemic a pronounced shift occurred in green economies when considering the risk transmissions within the context of commodities: oil and gold. While Asian green economy index was persistently a receiver of risk transmission from oil unlike the other two regions, since pandemic, oil displayed an asymmetric effect and has become the net transmitter of risk in negative returns of the green economies of US and Europe. This may reflect the diversion in environmental policies of the two regions in the recent past, and point to the dominance of energy sector in the green economy. These findings have substantial implications for the development of green economy policies and from an investment perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advocacy is one of the core functions of public health and is a key tool for achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Public health associations play a key role in advocating for the development and implementation of strategies to prevent diseases and promote health and well-being. This study aims to map out the focus of public health advocacy carried out by selected national public health associations over 4 years, between 2018 and 2021, in order to identify gaps and strengths and support associations and professionals in their advocacy efforts. Twelve national public health associations participated in the study. Official policy documents produced between 2018 and 2021 were collected and analysed. The title and summary of the policy documents were examined line by line and coded into the main subject categories and themes. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted. Policies were assessed from global and regional perspectives. A total of 220 policy documents were analysed. Overall, the largest number of policy documents came from high-income countries and dealt with environmental health and communicable diseases, including COVID-19, with, however, important differences among regions. In the African region, public health advocacy focused mainly on strengthening health systems; Europe and South America were mostly concerned with communicable diseases and pandemic management; and North America and the Western Pacific regions focused primarily on climate change. Limited attention was paid to international health and health as a human right in all regions. Our study showed that, especially in high-income countries, public health associations actively engage in advocacy; however, more effort needs to be devoted to implementing a more international and intersectoral approach at the global level, anchored in health as a human right and aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Estudios Andaluces is the property of Revista de Estudios Andaluces and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)