Democracy, State Capacity, Environment: Empirical Insights on Debates

• In Event: Democracy and Climate Stressors

Abstract

The precise nature of the relationship between democracy and environmental issues continues to be a subject of ongoing debate within the scientific community. The expansion of this discourse in political science and policy practice appears justified as an increasing number of countries embrace democracy (Polity IV 2020), and environmental concerns garner attention from local, national, and global political actors (Haas et al., 1993)."
Extensive empirical research investigates the impact of democracy on the environment, making significant contributions to the ongoing democracy-environment debates. These studies can be categorized into three distinct groups based on the conceptualization of the environment as an endogenous construct: environmental policy outcomes, environmental policy outputs, and the combination of both outcomes and outputs.
The existing literature suggests ambiguous relationships between democracy and environmental outputs and outcomes. For instance, research on environmental outputs identifies positive effects of democracy on environmental commitments (Bättig and Bernauer, 2009; Fredriksson et al., 2005; Neumayer, 2002; Congleton, 1992). However, the impact of democracy on environmental policy stringency and regulatory regimes becomes less significant when additional explanatory variables are introduced (Pellegrini and Gerlagh, 2006).
Considerably less clarity is evident in the literature regarding the impact of democracy on environmental outcomes. Some studies suggest that democracy enhances environmental quality and diminishes environmental degradation (Bernauer and Koubi, 2009; Li and Reuveny, 2006; Torras and Boyce, 1998).
Other scholars have demonstrated a mixed effect – positive, negative, and no significant effect – of democracy on environmental outcomes (Mildavsky, 1998; Barrett and Graddy, 2000; Mak Avin and Lew, 2011). The observed effects depend on the variables chosen by authors to conceptualize both democracy and environmental outcomes. For instance, Mildavsky (1998) identified a negative effect of democracy on carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation. Mak Avin and Lew (2011) obtained a similar negative effect, but it was observed only for deforestation; they found positive relations between democracy and carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, Li and Reuveny (2006) discovered a positive effect of democracy on both carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation. The variation in results depends not only on the measure of environmental outcomes but also on the measure of democracy, which differs across these three articles.
To unravel the ambiguous relations between democracy and environmental outcomes, some scholars are investigating slightly more complex causal mechanisms. For instance, Povitkina et al. (2015) demonstrated a positive effect of democracy in higher-income countries, while in lower-income countries, it appears to be negative. Ward (2008) illustrated that 'stable core democracies' exhibit stronger environmental sustainability compared to other democratic and authoritarian states. Several studies have revealed that third variables such as corruption, income inequality, age distribution, education, and urbanization may either strengthen or mitigate the effect of democracy on environmental outcomes (Povitkina, 2018; Povitkina, 2015; Farzin and Graig, 2006)."
Our contribution addresses a significant gap in the existing literature by revealing a complex causal mechanism between different types of democracy, on one hand, and both environmental outcomes and outputs, on the other hand, mediated by state capacities. While much of the current research focuses solely on either environmental outputs or outcomes, our empirical investigation in this article extends to cover both outputs and outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, there have been only a few attempts with such a dual focus. However, previous attempts either utilized very generalized indices of environmental sustainability that include democracy (Pellegrini and Gerlagh, 2006; Morse, 2006), or they narrowed their focus to specific themes such as climate change issues (Bättig and Bernauer, 2009).
Fundamentally, environmental commitments, international agreements, and policies (environmental outputs) serve as tools to attain the overarching development goals of modern societies, states, and humanity. This ultimate goal is the improvement of environmental quality (environmental outcomes). Therefore, a focus on both environmental outputs and outcomes is crucial in addressing the global environmental challenges confronting modern society and humanity.

Authors

• Dmitry Zaytsev, University of Notre Dame

• Valentina Kuskova, University of Notre Dame