Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels

Kinda, Romuald (2010): Democratic institutions and environmental quality: effects and transmission channels.

Abstract

This paper aims at analysing the effect of democratic institutions on environmental quality (carbon dioxide per capita, sulfure dioxide per capita) and at identifying potential channel transmissions. We use panel data from 1960 to 2008 in 122 developing and developed countries and modern econometric methods. The results are as follows: Firstly, we show that democratic institutions have opposite effects on environment quality: a positive direct effect on environment quality and a negative indirect effect through investments and income inequality. Indeed, democratic institutions attract investments that hurt environment quality. Moreover, as democratic institutions reduce income inequality, they also damage environment. Secondly, we find that the direct negative effect of democratic institutions is higher for local pollutant (SO2) than for global pollutant (CO2). Thirdly, the nature of democratic institutions (presidential, parliamentary) is not conducive to environmental quality. Fourtly, results suggest that the direct positive effect of democratic institutions on environment quality is higher in developed countries than in developing countries. Thus, the democratic process in the first group of countries has increased their awareness for the environment protection.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Democratic institutions (043); Air pollution (Q53); Panel data (C23); Income inequality (D31); Investments (E22)
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O43 - Institutions and Growth; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q53 - Air Pollution ; Water Pollution ; Noise ; Hazardous Waste ; Solid Waste ; Recycling

References

Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J.A., 2006. Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy, Cambridge University Press.

Alesina, A. & Rodrik, D., 1994. Distributive Politics and Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(2), 465-490.

Antweiler, W., Copeland, B.R. & Taylor, M.S., 2001. Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? The American Economic Review.

Barrett, S. & Graddy, K., 2000. Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environment and Development Economics, 5(04), 433–456.

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

Bimonte, S., 2002. Information access, income distribution, and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 41(1), 145-156.

Boix, C., 1998. Political parties, growth and equality: Conservative and social democratic economic strategies in the world economy, Cambridge University Press.

Clément, M. &Meunié, A., 2010. Is inequality harmful for environment? An empirical analysis applied to developing and transition countries. Review of Social Economy, forthcoming.

Congleton, R.D., 1992. Political Institutions and Pollution Control. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412-421.

Dryzek, J.S., 1987. Rational ecology: environment and political economy, Basil Blackwell New York.

Eriksson, C., Persson, J., 2003. Economic Growth, Inequality, Democratization and the Environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 25(1): 1-16.

Feng, Y., 2001. Political Freedom, Political Instability, and Policy Uncertainty: A Study of Political Institutions and Private Investment in Developing Countries. International Studies Quarterly, 45(2), 271-294.

Figueroa, A., 1996. The Distributive Issue in Latin America. International Social Science Journal, 48(2), 231-44.

Frankel, J.A. & Rose, A.K., 2005. Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85-91.

Gradstein, M., Milanovic, B. & Ying, Y., (2001). Democracy and Income Inequality An Empirical Analysis, Policy Research Working Paper, 2561, Washington,DC: The World Bank. 21

Grossman, G.M. & Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. Harbaugh, W.T., Levinson, A. & Wilson, D.M., 2002. Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(3), 541– 551.

Helliwell, J.F., 1994. Empirical Linkages Between Democracy and Economic Growth. British Journal of Political Science, 24(02), 225-248. Holtz-Eakin, D. & Selden, T.M., 1995. Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57(1), 85-101.

Huntington, S. & Dominguez, J., 1975. Political development. Macropolitical Theory, 1–114. Handbook of Political Science, Addison-Wesley Reading. Joskow, P.L., Schmalensee, R. & Bailey, E.M., 1998. The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. The American Economic Review, 88(4), 669-685.

Li, Q. & Reuveny, R., 2006. Democracy and environmental degradation. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 935.

Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty- Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Managi, S., 2004. Trade liberalization and the environment: carbon dioxide for 1960-1999. Economics Bulletin, 17(1), 1–5.

McCloskey, D.N., 1983. The Rhetoric of Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 21(2), 481-517.

Midlarsky, M.I., 1998. Democracy and the environment: An empirical assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341–361.

Neumayer, E., Gates, S. & Gleditsch, N.P., 2002. Environmental Commitment, Democracy and Inequality: A Background Paper to World Development Report 2003. World Bank, Washington DC.

Newell, N.D. & Marcus, L., 1987. Carbon Dioxide and People. PALAIOS, 2(1), 101-103.

Olson, M., 1982. The rise and decline of nations, Yale University Press New Haven, CT.

Olson, M., 1993. Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 567-576.

Paehlke, R., 1996. Environmental challenges to democratic practice. Democracy and the environment: problems and prospects, 18.

Page, B.I. & Shapiro, R.Y., 1983. Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. The American 22

Political Science Review, 77(1), 175-190. Pastor, J. & Hilt, E., 1993. Private investment and democracy in Latin America. World Development, 21(4), 489-507.

Pastor, M. & Sung, J.H., 1995. Private Investment and Democracy in the Developing World. Journal of Economic Issues, 29(1), 223-243.

Payne, R.A., 1995. Freedom and the Environment. Journal of Democracy, 6(3), 41-55.

Reuveny, R. & Li, Q., 2003. Economic Openness, Democracy, and Income Inequality: An Empirical Analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 36(5), 575-601.

Robert T. Deacon, 1999. The Political Economy of Environment-Development Relationships: A Preliminary Framework, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.

Savoia, A., Easaw, J. & McKay, A., 2010. Inequality, Democracy, and Institutions: A Critical Review of Recent Research. World Development, 38(2), 142-154.

Selden, T.M. & Song, D., 1995. Neoclassical Growth, the J Curve for Abatement, and the Inverted U Curve for Pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(2), 162-168.

Shafik, N., 1994a. Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 757-773.

Shafik, N., 1994b. Economic Development and Environmental Quality: An Econometric Analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46, 757-773.

Scharpf, W., 2000. Institutions in Comparative Policy Research. Comparative Political Studies 33(6/7): 762-790

Suri, V. & Chapman, D., 1998. Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 195-208.

Torras, M. & Boyce, J.K., 1998. Income, inequality, and pollution: A reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological economics, 25(2), 147–160.

Tsebelis, G., 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science