Civil society and environmental compliance: New empirical evidence

Abdulla, Kanat and Serikbayeva, Balzhan (2022): Civil society and environmental compliance: New empirical evidence.

Abstract

In this article we examine the effect of civil society capacity on environmental compliance. We argue that civil society development positively impacts compliance with environmental regulations. We propose a theoretical framework whereby better civil society increases the cost of non-compliance; hence companies are more likely to behave in an environmentally friendly way. Our empirical findings suggest that a well-developed civil society contributes to better environmental performance of enterprises. This is robust to controlling for the levels of income and environmental awareness across countries as well as their regional characteristics. Thus, the study provides evidence for the important role of enhancing civil society participation in achieving greater environmental protection and has significant policy implications.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: civil society, environmental compliance
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O13 - Agriculture ; Natural Resources ; Energy ; Environment ; Other Primary Products; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O44 - Environment and Growth; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes

References

Arvin, B. M. and Lew, B. (2009). Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries? Applied Economics, 43(9):1151–1160.

Azam, M., Hunjra, A. I., Bouri, E., Tan, Y., and Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2021). Impact of institutional quality on sustainable development: Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 298:113465.

Barrett, S. and Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environment and Development Economics, 5(4):433–456.

Barro, R. and Lee, J.-W. (2013). A new data set of educational attainment in the world 1950-2010. Journal of Development Economics, 104:184–198.

Bernauer, T. and Koubi, V. (2009). Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5):1355–1365.

Bernhard, M., Jung, D.-J., Tzelgov, E., Coppedge, M., and Lindberg, S. I. (2017). Making Embedded Knowledge Transparent: How the V-Dem Dataset Opens New Vistas in Civil Society Research. Perspectives on Politics, 15(2):342–360.

Bernhard, M., Tzelgov, E., Jung, D.-J., Coppedge, M., and Lindberg, S. (2015). The Varieties of Democracy Core Civil Society Index. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Bertelsmann Stiftung (2014). Transformation Index BTI. Guetersloh, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Civicus (2013). The Civicus Enabling Environment Index. Report.

Coppedge, M., Lindberg, S., Skaaning, S.-E., and Teorell, J. (2016). Measuring high level democratic principles using the V-Dem data. International Political Science Review, 37(5):580–593.

Farzanegan, M. R. and Markwardt, G. (2018). Development and pollution in the Middle East and North Africa: Democracy matters. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(2):350–374.

Feenstra, Robert C., R. I. and Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10):3150–82.

Glass, L.-M. and Newig, J. (2019). Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: How important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and democratic institutions? Earth System Governance, 2:100031.

Hegre, H., Bernhard, M., and Teorell, J. (2019). Civil Society and the Democratic Peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(1):32–62.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., and Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators : methodology and analytical issues. Policy Research Working Paper Series 5430, The World Bank.

Kovalev, N., Koppel, J., Drozdov, A., and Dittrich, E. (2009). Democracy and the Environment in Russia. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 11(02):161–173.

Lindberg, S. I., Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., and Teorell, J. (2014). V-Dem: A New Way to Measure Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25(3):159–169.

Neumayer, E. (2002). Do Democracies Exhibit Stronger International Environmental Commitment?

A Cross-country Analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2):139–164. 18

Our world in data (2022). Retrieved March 2, 2022. https://ourworldindata.org/regimes-of-theworld-data.

Satrovic, E., Ahmad, M., and Muslija, A. (2021). Does democracy improve environmental quality of GCC region? Analysis robust to cross-section dependence and slope heterogeneity. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(44):62927–62942.

Usman, O., Iorember, P. T., and Olanipekun, I. O. (2019). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in India: the effects of energy consumption and democracy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(13):13390–13400.

V-Dem Institute (2022). Varieties of Democracy project. The V-Dem Dataset. Vakulchuk, R. and Overland, I. (2017). Kazakhstan: Civil Society and Natural Resource Policy in Kazakhstan. In Public Brainpower, pages 143–162. Springer International Publishing.

Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: a cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9(5):663–693.

WolfM., J., Emerson J., W., Esty D., C., Sherbinin, A., andWendling Z., A. (2022). Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.