Autocratic angels? Democratic demons? The impact of regime type, state capacity and economic development on reaching environmental targets

Autocratic angels? Democratic demons? The impact of regime type, state capacity and economic development on reaching environmental targets

Download PDF 0.9 MB

Stepping, Katharina M.K. / Lilli Banholzer
Discussion Paper 26/2017

Bonn: German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)

ISBN: 978-3-96021-050-4
Price: 6 €

This paper analyses whether variances in effective environmental policies that lead to achieving environmental targets can be attributed to the different types of political regimes, the level of a state’s economic development, or its state capacity. Our analysis is based on a cross-sectional time-series dataset including around 132 countries and covering the period from 2000 to 2010. Our dependent variable is the Ecosystem Vitality index of the 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Against our assumption, we do not find consistent evidence that democratic regimes outperform autocratic ones when it comes to reaching environmental targets. The level of state capacity as such plays a rather unclear role where higher state capacity does not automatically translate into better environmental protection. However, democratic states with increasing capacity are less harmful to the environment than autocratic states with increasing capacity. The level of economic development on the other hand turns out as the best predictor for environmental performance: Environmental targets are less likely to be reached while economies are developing but, once a threshold has been passed, economic development starts to become positively correlated with environmental friendliness. The effect of economic development is more pronounced for democracies than for autocracies: people’s preferences in a democracy seem to be more influenced by economic development than the preferences of autocratic leaders.

About the author

Banholzer, Lilli

Political Scientist

Lilli Banholzer

Further experts

Breuer, Anita

Political Scientist 

Dombrowsky, Ines

Economist 

Furness, Mark

Political Scientist 

Grävingholt, Jörn

Political Scientist 

Horstmann, Britta

Geographer 

Leininger, Julia

Political Scientist 

Pauw, Pieter

Environment Scientist 

Scholz, Imme

Sociologist 

Mroß, Karina

Political Scientist 

Current Publications

The European Fund for Sustainable Development: changing the game?

Lundsgaarde, Erik
Discussion Paper 29/2017

The EU Migration Partnership Framework: time for a rethink?

Castillejo, Clare
Discussion Paper 28/2017

The eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference: the future of multilateralism is at stake

Berger, Axel
The Current Column of 11 December 2017

More development - more migration? The “migration hump“ and its significance for development policy co-operation with sub-Saharan Africa

Angenendt, Steffen / Charles Martin-Shields / Benjamin Schraven
Externe Publikationen of 05 December 2017

Mehr Entwicklung - mehr Migration? Der »migration hump« und seine Bedeutung für die entwicklungspolitische Zusammenarbeit mit Subsahara-Afrika

Angenendt, Steffen / Charles Martin-Shields / Benjamin Schraven
Externe Publikationen of 05 December 2017

Brauchen wir auch eine Obergrenze für Klimaflüchtlinge?

Schraven, Benjamin
Externe Publikationen of 05 December 2017