Does climate finance drive economic growth or simply redistribute it? Peer-reviewed research, OECD data, and multi-country panel analysis reveal what works, what doesn’t, and why the Copenhagen-Baku framework needs fundamental reform.

The $100 Billion Promise and Its Unresolved Questions

In 2009, developed nations made a historic commitment: mobilise $100 billion annually in climate finance to support developing countries in mitigation and adaptation by 2020. The target was reaffirmed in Paris in 2015, extended in subsequent COPs, and finally raised to $300 billion at COP29 in Baku in 2024. Yet despite more than a decade of implementation and hundreds of billions in reported flows, fundamental questions about climate finance’s economic impact remain unsettled.

According to OECD analysis published in 2024, public climate finance reached USD 91.6 billion in 2022, close to the original $100 billion target, though arriving years late. Private finance mobilised by public interventions grew by 52% following years of stagnation. Adaptation finance tripled from 2016 levels to USD 32.4 billion. The financial flows are real and substantial. What remains contested is whether these flows drive genuine economic growth in recipient countries or merely reshuffle existing development aid under a climate label.

A 2025 peer-reviewed study published in Climate Economics and Finance by Luqmon O. Oladele examined four countries, China, Indonesia, Egypt, and Turkey and found that climate-related expenditure contributes positively to economic growth across multiple econometric model specifications. Simultaneously, a 2025 ScienceDirect study spanning 35 developing countries across Africa, Latin America, and Asia found that while institutional quality, trade openness, and industrial development significantly enhance economic resilience, the direct effects of climate finance and sustainable investment are statistically minimal.

These findings are not contradictory; they reveal different aspects of a complex system. This article synthesises the empirical evidence, examines the policy structures through which climate finance operates, identifies what works and what fails, and argues that current instruments require fundamental reform to deliver on their stated economic objectives.

Part 1: What Climate Finance Actually Is  And What It Isn’t

The term ‘climate finance’ encompasses a range of financial flows with different sources, mechanisms, and intended outcomes. Understanding the distinctions is essential for evaluating impact claims.

The Copenhagen-Baku Framework 

The original $100 billion commitment established at COP15 in Copenhagen was deliberately vague about what would count toward the target. Would it include concessional loans, grants, equity investments, guarantees, and private finance mobilised through public interventions? The answer, developed over subsequent years of negotiation, was yes to all of them, a breadth that has generated persistent controversy about whether the target has genuinely been met or merely creatively accounted for.

At COP29 in Baku, the annual target was increased to $300 billion by 2035, with a broader aspiration of mobilising $1.3 trillion annually from all sources, public and private, by that date. The OECD’s climate finance tracking methodology distinguishes between bilateral public finance (direct country-to-country flows), multilateral finance attributable to developed countries (their contributions to climate funds and development banks), and private finance mobilised by public interventions. In 2022, public climate finance accounted for close to 80% of the total reported against the $100 billion goal.

Mitigation vs. Adaptation: The Two-Goal Problem

A 2025 policy analysis by FinDev Lab identifies a fundamental flaw in climate finance architecture: it attempts to achieve two distinct objectives, mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation (building resilience to climate impacts), using a single pooled instrument. According to the Tinbergen principle in economic policy, achieving two separate objectives requires two separate instruments. Climate finance violates this principle by bundling both goals into a single financing target.

The OECD-DAC reporting system uses ‘Rio markers’ to categorise projects as principally or significantly focused on mitigation or adaptation. However, the results remain imprecise. Many projects funded as climate finance do not have climate as their principal objective but rather as a significant secondary component. This creates ambiguity in attribution: how much of a $500 million infrastructure loan should count as climate finance if climate considerations represent 30% of the project’s design criteria?

In 2022, mitigation continued to account for the majority of climate finance, representing 60% of the total, while adaptation reached USD 32.4 billion. The imbalance persists despite adaptation being the more urgent need for the most vulnerable developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and small island states, where adaptive capacity is lowest, and climate impacts are most severe.

Component	2022 Value (USD bn)	Share of Total	Primary Recipients
Public bilateral	~45 bn	~49%	Country-to-country direct flows
Public multilateral	~47 bn	~51%	MDB-channelled flows
Private mobilised	Growth of 52% YoY	Increasing share	Project co-financing, guarantees
Adaptation finance	32.4 bn	~35%	Vulnerable LDCs, SIDS
Mitigation finance	~55 bn	~60%	Renewable energy, transport, efficiency

Part 2: The Evidence on Economic Growth: What Peer-Reviewed Research Shows

The most direct question climate finance evaluation must answer is: Does it contribute to economic growth in recipient countries? Two recent peer-reviewed studies using panel econometric methods provide the clearest available evidence, and their findings are both affirming and cautionary.

Oladele (2025): Positive Growth Effects Across Models

Oladele’s study, published in Climate Economics and Finance, examines China, Indonesia, Egypt, and Turkey using pooled ordinary least squares, fixed effects, and random effects panel models. The central finding: climate-related expenditure contributes positively to economic growth irrespective of the econometric specification used. This result holds when controlling for population, which the study finds negatively impacts growth, consistent with classic Malthusian and capital-dilution theories.

Notably, the study also finds that the frequency of climate-related disasters has a positive relationship with economic growth. This counterintuitive result likely reflects post-disaster reconstruction spending, which temporarily boosts GDP through infrastructure rebuilding, disaster relief employment, and supply chain restoration. The finding is consistent with broader disaster economics literature, which distinguishes between short-run GDP effects (often positive due to reconstruction) and long-run welfare effects (typically negative due to destroyed capital stock and human suffering).

Oladele’s conclusion is emphatic: the findings underscore the need to see climate finance beyond merely a response to environmental risks but as a catalyst for inclusive and resilient economic transformation.’ This framing of climate finance as growth policy, not merely risk mitigation, represents an increasingly influential perspective in development economics.

ScienceDirect Multi-Country Study (2025): Minimal Direct Effects

A contrasting perspective emerges from a 2025 ScienceDirect study examining 35 developing countries across Africa, Latin America, and Asia from 1990 to 2023. Using the System Generalised Method of Moments (System GMM) estimator, a sophisticated technique designed to address endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity, the researchers find that institutional quality, trade openness, industrial development, and overall economic performance significantly enhance resilience. However, the direct effects of climate finance and sustainable investment are statistically minimal.

Subsample analyses reveal significant regional variation. In Africa, institutional governance and trade integration are the primary determinants of resilience. In Asia, inflation management is key. In Latin America, industrial diversification has the most pronounced impact. Climate finance alone, without structural reform, produces little measurable effect in any region.

The study’s policy conclusion is stark: climate finance must be integrated into wider structural and institutional reforms to achieve effectiveness. Pouring capital into countries with weak governance, closed economies, or undiversified industrial bases does not produce resilient economic systems; it produces dependency and leakage.

Reconciling the Evidence

The apparent contradiction between Oladele’s positive findings and the ScienceDirect study’s minimal-direct-effects conclusion resolves when examined carefully. Oladele’s sample includes China, Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, all middle-income countries with relatively strong institutions, diversified economies, and significant state capacity. The ScienceDirect sample includes 35 developing countries spanning the full spectrum from fragile states to emerging markets.

The pattern suggests that climate finance’s growth effects are conditional on the recipient country’s institutional and economic baseline. In countries with functional governance, open trade regimes, and diversified production, climate investments translate into growth. In countries without those foundations, the same financial flows dissipate into inefficiency, corruption, or capital flight. This conditional effectiveness is the core challenge for global climate finance architecture.

Part 3: Employment and Value-Added  Estimating Development Impacts

Beyond aggregate GDP effects, climate investments generate measurable impacts on employment and economic value-added. The Climate Investment Funds (CIF), in partnership with multilateral development banks, has undertaken systematic analysis of these effects using three methodological approaches: the Employment Factor Approach (EFA), the International Jobs and Economic Development Impacts Model (I-JEDI), and the Joint Impact Model (JIM). A 2024 CIF portfolio analysis synthesises results across these models.

Methodological Approaches

The Employment Factor Approach uses sector-specific employment multipliers derived from macroeconomic input-output tables. For renewable energy projects, the multiplier captures direct jobs (installation, construction, operation), indirect jobs (supply chain and manufacturing), and induced jobs (spending by workers in the local economy). The I-JEDI Model, developed by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory and adapted internationally, provides project-level estimates of jobs and economic output by technology type, project size, and region.

The Joint Impact Model integrates financial flows, technology characteristics, and local economic conditions to produce blended estimates that account for both short-term construction effects and long-run operational employment. All three models are ‘contribution approaches’ rather than attribution approaches; they estimate the development impacts of the entire blended investment (CIF financing plus partner MDB resources and private co-financing), not solely CIF’s catalytic funding.

The comparison across models reveals significant methodological variation but directionally consistent results. Renewable energy investments produce measurably more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuel alternatives, with solar photovoltaic installations generating particularly high employment intensity during construction phases. Energy efficiency retrofits in buildings and industry produce fewer direct jobs but higher net economic value-added by reducing ongoing energy costs.

Key Findings on Job Creation

CIF’s Clean Technology Fund (CTF) portfolio analysis shows that climate investments generate employment across multiple skill levels, from low-skill construction labour to high-skill engineering and project management roles. However, the sustainability of these jobs varies significantly. Construction-phase jobs are temporary by definition. Operational-phase jobs in renewable energy plants are permanent but fewer in number than construction jobs. The employment stability and wage quality matter as much as raw job counts for long-run development impact.

Critically, the analysis notes that these models provide ‘directional insights’ rather than precise causal estimates. They rely on macroeconomic averages and assumptions that may not hold in specific project contexts. Local labour market conditions, the availability of skilled workers, supply chain capacity, and project implementation quality all affect actual employment outcomes in ways that aggregate models cannot fully capture.

Part 4: The Institutional Quality Problem: Why Some Climate Finance Fails

The single most consistent finding across climate finance impact studies is that institutional quality determines whether financial flows translate into development outcomes. This is not a surprising insight; it applies to foreign aid broadly, not just climate finance, but it is systematically ignored in global climate finance allocation debates.

What Institutional Quality Means in Practice

Institutional quality encompasses several measurable dimensions: rule of law (contracts are enforceable, property rights are secure), control of corruption (public funds are not systematically diverted), government effectiveness (bureaucracies can implement complex projects), regulatory quality (regulations support rather than obstruct productive activity), and political stability (policy continuity is reliable enough to justify long-term investments).

The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators provide standardised cross-country measures of these dimensions. The correlation between governance scores and climate finance effectiveness is strong and statistically robust across multiple studies. Countries in the top quartile of governance indicators translate climate investments into measurable resilience and growth. Countries in the bottom quartile show minimal or negative returns.

The Allocation Dilemma

This creates a profound allocation dilemma. The countries most vulnerable to climate impacts, particularly least-developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa and small island developing states, are often the same countries with the weakest institutional capacity. Allocating climate finance based purely on vulnerability directs funds to contexts where they are least likely to produce effective outcomes. Allocating based on institutional quality directs funds away from the populations facing the most severe climate risks.

Current climate finance practice attempts to navigate this dilemma through capacity-building programmes, technical assistance, and multilateral development bank intermediation. However, these mechanisms add transaction costs and time delays. A project that requires two years of capacity-building before implementation begins has already lost significant value relative to one that can deploy immediately. The trade-off between targeting the most vulnerable and targeting the most capable remains unresolved.

Climate finance works best where it is needed least in countries with strong institutions, diversified economies, and existing capacity. Where it is needed most in fragile states facing catastrophic climate risks, it frequently fails to deliver.

Part 5: The Mitigation-Adaptation Imbalance  Following the Money

The 60-40 split in climate finance between mitigation and adaptation reflects a structural bias in how climate investment decisions are made. Understanding why requires examining the incentives facing the institutions that allocate capital.

Why Mitigation Dominates

Mitigation projects, such as renewable energy installations, energy efficiency upgrades, and sustainable transport infrastructure, produce quantifiable, verifiable emissions reductions that can be measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalent avoided. These metrics are legible to climate negotiators, fundable through carbon credit mechanisms, and attractive to private investors seeking measurable environmental performance.

Adaptation projects, such as coastal defences, drought-resistant agriculture, early warning systems, and community resilience programmes, produce diffuse, hard-to-quantify benefits that manifest as avoided damages rather than positive returns. There is no standardised metric for ‘tonnes of climate resilience created.’ The benefits are real but resistant to the performance measurement frameworks that dominate development finance.

Furthermore, mitigation projects often have clear revenue models. A solar farm sells electricity. An energy efficiency retrofit reduces operating costs. These cash flows support commercial or concessional debt financing. Adaptation projects rarely generate direct revenue. They are public goods that require grant financing or deeply concessional terms, which are scarcer and harder to scale.

The Adaptation Finance Gap

Adaptation finance needs are estimated at $215 billion to $387 billion annually for developing countries by 2030, according to UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Report. The $32.4 billion delivered in 2022 represents less than 15% of the lower bound of that estimate. The gap is not narrowing; it is widening as climate impacts accelerate faster than adaptation finance scales.

The institutional response to this gap has been the creation of dedicated adaptation funds, the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), all of which operate within the UNFCCC financial architecture. However, these funds remain dramatically under-capitalised relative to assessed need. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has a 50-50 allocation target between mitigation and adaptation, but has struggled to meet it in practice due to the pipeline constraints on bankable adaptation projects.

Dimension	Mitigation Finance	Adaptation Finance
Primary objective	Reduce emissions (CO2, methane, etc.)	Build resilience to climate impacts
Output metrics	Tonnes CO2eq avoided; renewable MW installed	Lives protected; assets secured; systems resilient
Revenue potential	Often commercial (electricity sales, cost savings)	Rarely revenue-generating (public goods)
Private finance	Attracts significant private capital	Almost entirely public/grant-dependent
Beneficiaries	Global (emissions reductions benefit all)	Local (resilience benefits specific communities)
Urgency perception	Long-term global necessity	Immediate survival needs for vulnerable populations

Part 6: The Private Finance Challenge  Mobilisation vs. Reality

One of the most significant claims in climate finance reporting is the ‘mobilisation’ of private capital. The logic is straightforward: public climate finance provides concessional terms, guarantees, or first-loss capital that de-risks projects sufficiently to attract private investors. The Copenhagen commitment included mobilised private finance in its $100 billion target, which means the effectiveness of mobilisation mechanisms directly affects whether the target is genuinely met.

What Mobilisation Actually Means

The OECD defines mobilised private finance as private capital committed to climate-relevant projects where public interventions played a direct causal role in enabling the investment. Causality is established through mechanisms such as co-financing (public and private capital in the same project), syndication (public financial institutions bringing in private lenders), guarantees (public coverage of specific risks), or policy reforms that unlock private investment.

The challenge is attribution. If a wind farm receives a $200 million loan from a multilateral development bank and simultaneously raises $300 million from commercial banks, how much of the $300 million was genuinely ‘mobilised’ by the MDB’s involvement versus what would have happened anyway? The OECD methodology applies conservative attribution rules, but the underlying counterfactual, what would have occurred absent the public intervention, is inherently unobservable.

The 52% Growth and What It Tells Us

The OECD’s finding that mobilised private finance grew by 52% in 2022, following years of stagnation, is significant. It suggests that the de-risking mechanisms deployed by multilateral climate funds and development banks are becoming more effective or that private investors’ risk appetite for climate projects in emerging markets has increased due to improved project track records and better regulatory frameworks.

However, the absolute scale of mobilised private finance remains modest relative to the need. Even with 52% growth, private mobilisation represents a relatively small share of total climate finance flows. The vast majority of climate finance to developing countries remains public. Scaling private finance to the trillions required for a global net-zero transition by mid-century requires not incremental improvement but a structural transformation of how risk is priced and allocated in climate-relevant projects.

Part 7: Reform Proposals: What Would Actually Work Better

The evidence reviewed above points toward several structural reforms that would improve climate finance effectiveness. These are not marginal adjustments; they require rethinking the foundational architecture established at Copenhagen and refined over 15 years of negotiation.

Proposal 1: Separate Mitigation and Adaptation Instruments

The FinDev Lab analysis correctly identifies the Tinbergen principle violation: two goals require two instruments. Mitigation and adaptation should have separate financing targets, separate institutional mechanisms, and separate performance metrics. This does not mean doubling the total target arbitrarily. It means explicit allocation: $X billion for mitigation, $Y billion for adaptation, with each evaluated on its own success criteria rather than bundled into a single aggregate that obscures trade-offs.

Separating the instruments would force an honest conversation about priorities. Developed countries have systematically underfunded adaptation relative to mitigation because mitigation projects are easier to finance and produce globally legible emissions reductions. Requiring a separate adaptation target would make the shortfall visible and politically costly to sustain.

Proposal 2: Institutional Quality Gating with Intensive Capacity-Building

Rather than pretending all countries can absorb climate finance equally effectively, create a two-tier system. Tier 1: Countries above a defined institutional quality threshold receive direct access to large-scale project finance. Tier 2: countries below the threshold receive intensive multi-year capacity-building programmes focused specifically on climate project implementation, coupled with small-scale pilot projects to build track records.

Critically, Tier 2 status would not be permanent or stigmatising. Countries that demonstrate improved governance and implementation capacity graduate to Tier 1. The capacity-building funding itself would count toward climate finance commitments, incentivising donors to invest in institutional strengthening rather than treating it as an unfunded prerequisite.

Proposal 3: Shift Adaptation Finance Toward Grants

Adaptation projects cannot generate commercial returns in most cases. Attempting to finance them through loans, even concessional loans, creates debt burdens without corresponding revenue streams. The result is either non-repayment (imposing losses on multilateral institutions) or debt distress for recipient countries already facing fiscal constraints.

Adaptation finance should be predominantly grant-based, particularly for least-developed countries and small island states. This requires a larger share of climate finance commitments to come from donor government budgets rather than from MDB loan portfolios. That is politically difficult but economically necessary. The alternative is pretending that adaptation investments are commercially viable when they are not, which produces neither effective adaptation nor sustainable debt dynamics.

Proposal 4: Create Standardised Adaptation Metrics

Part of the adaptation’s financing challenge is its measurement challenge. Develop a standardised framework for quantifying resilience gains, lives protected per dollar invested, economic losses avoided, and critical infrastructure secured and require all adaptation projects to report against it. The metrics will be imperfect, but imperfect standardised metrics are more useful than perfect bespoke assessments that cannot be aggregated or compared.

This would allow adaptation projects to compete for finance on measurable impact rather than narrative appeal. It would also enable private investors to enter adaptation finance by providing the performance transparency they require. Outcome-based financing, where payments are tied to verified resilience improvements, becomes possible only with credible measurement systems.

Part 8: The $300 Billion Question: Can the Baku Target Be Met?

COP29 in Baku raised the annual climate finance target from $100 billion to $300 billion by 2035, with a broader mobilisation goal of $1.3 trillion from all sources. Whether this target is achievable depends on reforms far beyond the scope of climate finance itself; it requires macroeconomic shifts, trade policy changes, and institutional development in recipient countries that no amount of capital can purchase directly.

The Path to $300 Billion

Reaching $300 billion in credible climate finance annually requires roughly tripling adaptation finance, doubling mitigation finance, and at least quintupling mobilised private finance from 2022 levels. None of these scaling pathways is currently on track. Adaptation finance growth has been inconsistent. Mitigation finance growth is steady but incremental. Private finance mobilisation showed strong 2022 growth but from a low base and with no guarantee of sustained momentum.

The OECD’s methodology improvements will help: better tracking, clearer definitions, and more conservative counting rules reduce the risk that inflated claims undermine target credibility. However, methodology alone cannot close a capital gap measured in hundreds of billions. Donor countries must either increase their budget allocations, politically challenging amid domestic fiscal pressures, or the multilateral system must develop genuinely new mechanisms for mobilising private capital at scale.

The $1.3 Trillion Mobilisation Goal

The $1.3 trillion ‘all sources’ target is more aspirational than operational. It includes domestic public investment by developing countries themselves, South-South climate finance flows, and private investment that has no direct linkage to public climate finance interventions. Tracking it will be methodologically challenging and vulnerable to the same attribution ambiguities that have plagued the $100 billion goal.

However, the broader target serves a useful purpose: it acknowledges that public climate finance, even at $300 billion annually, represents a small fraction of the total investment required for a global net-zero transition. The real question is not whether governments can mobilise $1.3 trillion; it is whether they can create policy, regulatory, and financial market conditions under which private actors choose to deploy capital toward climate outcomes without needing explicit public subsidy for every dollar.

Conclusion: Climate Finance Can Work  But Not As Currently Designed

The empirical evidence on climate finance and economic growth is clear enough to support several definitive conclusions. First, climate finance can drive genuine economic growth and resilience, but only in countries with the institutional capacity to deploy it effectively. Second, mitigation and adaptation require fundamentally different financing approaches and should not be bundled into a single target. Third, adaptation finance is dramatically under-scaled relative to assessed need and requires a shift toward grant-based mechanisms. Fourth, private finance mobilisation is growing but remains far below the scale required to meet global climate investment needs.

The policy reforms required to address these gaps are neither mysterious nor technically complex. They are politically difficult because they require developed countries to acknowledge that the current architecture systematically under-delivers on adaptation, that many recipient countries lack the capacity to absorb large-scale climate finance without intensive institution-building support, and that achieving the $300 billion and $1.3 trillion targets will require budget commitments that donors have been reluctant to make explicit.

Oladele’s finding that climate finance contributes positively to growth in middle-income countries with functional institutions is encouraging. The ScienceDirect study’s finding that direct effects are minimal in the absence of broader structural reform is sobering. Together, they suggest that climate finance is a complement to development, not a substitute for it. Capital alone does not build resilience. Capital deployed in contexts with effective governance, open economies, and diversified production structures builds resilience. Everything else is redistribution under a climate label.

The choice facing the international community is whether to continue the current model, undifferentiated capital flows toward an aggregate target with vague success criteria and persistent under-delivery on adaptation, or to undertake the structural reforms that the evidence shows are necessary. The $300 billion target provides a political window for that reform. Whether it will be used is the question that will define the next decade of climate finance.

Spend some time on your future. 

To deepen your understanding of today’s evolving financial landscape, we recommend exploring the following articles:

Top 10 Businesses with the Highest Failure Rates Exposed

Navigating Financial Nihilism: Investment Plays for Inflated Assets

Funnel Autopsy: Diagnosing High Traffic and Near‑Zero Conversions

How to Tell If You’re a Finance Genius—or Quietly Headed for Trouble

Outdated Old-School Financial Advice: What to Ignore and What to Replace It With

Explore these articles to get a grasp on the new changes in the financial world.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes financial, investment, policy, or legal advice. Climate finance policies, international agreements, and economic research findings are subject to change and interpretation. All studies and data sources cited are provided for informational purposes only. The author and publisher accept no liability for policy decisions or investment actions taken in reliance on this content. Always consult qualified advisors before making financial or policy decisions related to climate finance.

References

[1] L. O. Oladele, ‘Impact of Climate-Finance on Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Analysis,’ Climate Economics and Finance, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 12, 2025. doi:10.58567/cef03010005. [Online]. Available: https://www.anserpress.org/journal/cef/3/1/12

[2] ScienceDirect, ‘Climate Finance and Economic Resilience: The Role of Sustainable Investment,’ 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2950524025000332

[3] FinDev Lab, ‘Climate Finance: An Ill-Designed Instrument for Development,’ Policy Note, April 2025. [Online]. Available: https://findevlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/FDL_Policy-Note_Climate-Finance_April-25.pdf

[4] OECD, ‘Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal,’ OECD.org, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/climate-finance-and-the-usd-100-billion-goal.html

[5] Climate Investment Funds, ‘Estimating the Social and Economic Development Impacts of Climate Investments,’ CIF.org, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.cif.org/sites/cif_enc/files/knowledge-documents/ctf_social_and_economic_development_impacts_of_climate_investments.pdf

[6] M. Arellano and S. Bond, ‘Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations,’ The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 277-297, 1991.

[7] D. Roodman, ‘How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata,’ The Stata Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 86-136, 2009.

[8] UNEP, ‘Adaptation Gap Report 2023: Underfinanced. Underprepared,’ United Nations Environment Programme, 2023.

[9] World Bank, ‘Worldwide Governance Indicators,’ WorldBank.org. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators

[10] J. Tinbergen, On the Theory of Economic Policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1952.