Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 985–1011 | Cite as

The effectiveness of Green voices in parliaments: Do Green Parties matter in the control of pollution?

  • Paulo Reis MouraoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Green Parties are not the most popular in polls. However, their electoral scores have been achieving more significance since the 1990s, especially in European elections. This paper discusses the role of various Green seats occupied in 36 democracies in terms of the country’s control of pollution. Using different specifications for system GMM, the regressions here discussed concluded that higher shares of parliamentary seats occupied by Green Parties tended to be observed in countries with the most significant reductions in estimated levels of different pollutant gases (CO2, N2O, SO2, CH4, and GHG). Additional robustness checks have also been discussed.

Keywords

Parliaments Green Parties Pollutant gases Environmental policies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the suggestions provided by three anonymous reviewers of ‘Environment, Development, and Sustainability’ on a previous version of this work. Remaining limitations are author’s exclusive ones. This work was carried out within the funding with COMPETE reference no POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006683, with the FCT/MEC’s (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P.) financial support through national funding and by the ERDF through the Operational Programme on “Competitiveness and Internationalization—COMPETE 2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement.”

References

  1. Ades, A., & di Tella, R. (1997). The new economics of corruption: A survey and some new results. Political Studies, XLV, 496–515.Google Scholar
  2. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2014). Causality and endogeneity: Problems and solutions. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 93–117). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anzia, S., & Moe, M. (2016). Polarization and policy: The politics of public sector pensions. Legislative Studies Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12145.Google Scholar
  4. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.Google Scholar
  5. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.Google Scholar
  6. Armingeon, K., Wenger, V., Wiedemeier, F., Isler, C., Knöpfel, L., Weisstanner, D., Engler, S. (2017). Comparative political data set 1960-2015. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.Google Scholar
  7. Bäck, H., Debus, M., & Tosun, J. (2015). Partisanship, ministers, and biotechnology policy. Review of Policy Research, 32(5), 556–575.Google Scholar
  8. Baltagi, B. (2013). Econometric analysis of panel data (5th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Baskaran, T., & Hessami, Z. (2014). Political alignment and intergovernmental transfers in parliamentary systems: Evidence from Germany. Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2014-17, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  10. Bekhet, H., & Othman, N. (2017). Impact of urbanization growth on Malaysia CO2 emissions: Evidence from the dynamic relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 374–388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.174.Google Scholar
  11. Bhati, Y., Hansen, K., & Olsen, A. (2013). Political hypocrisy: The effect of political scandals on candidate evaluations. Acta Politica, 48(4), 408–428.Google Scholar
  12. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.Google Scholar
  13. Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 443–450.Google Scholar
  14. Bundi, P. (2017). Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations. In: Evaluation and program planning.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.003.
  15. Burkens, M. (1982). The complete revision of the Dutch constitution. Netherlands International Law Review, 29(3), 323–336.Google Scholar
  16. Busemeyer, M., & Garritzmann, J. (2017). Public opinion on policy and budgetary trade-offs in European welfare states: Evidence from a new comparative survey. Journal of European Public Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1298658.Google Scholar
  17. Caselli, F., Esquivel, G., & Lefort, F. (1996). Reopening the convergence debate: A new look at cross-country growth empirics. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(3), 363–389.Google Scholar
  18. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272.Google Scholar
  19. Close, C., & Delwit, P. (2016). “Green parties and elections. In E. van Haute (Ed.), Green parties in Europe. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Cochran, J., Lynch, M., Toman, E., & Shields, R. (2016). Court sentencing patterns for environmental crimes: Is there a “Green” gap in punishment? Journal of Quantitative Criminology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9322-9.Google Scholar
  21. Comparative Manifesto Project. (2016). Various Indicators. Available through https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  22. Costa-i-Font, J. (2009). Simultaneity, asymmetric devolution and economic incentives in Spanish regional elections. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(1), 165–183.Google Scholar
  23. Crespy, A., & Parks, L. (2017). The connection between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition in the EU. From ACTA to the financial crisis. Journal of European Integration.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2017.1309038.Google Scholar
  24. Cui, E., Ren, L., & Sun, H. (2017). Analysis on the regional difference and impact factors of CO2 emissions in China. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12590.Google Scholar
  25. Daalder, H. (2015). State formation, parties and democracy. Studies in Comparative European politics. Colchester: ECPR.Google Scholar
  26. Dalton, R. (2005). The greening of the globe? Crossnational levels of environmental group membership. Environmental Politics, 14(4), 441–459.Google Scholar
  27. Dandoy, R. (2015). The electoral performance of the Belgian Green parties in 2014. Environmental Politics, 24(2), 326–331.Google Scholar
  28. Danlami, A., Applainadu, A., & Islam, R. (2017). Movement towards a low carbon emitted environment: A test of some factors in Malaysia. Environment Development and Sustainability.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9927-7.Google Scholar
  29. de Bruyn, S. M., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Opschoor, J. B. (1996). Economic growth and patterns of emissions—Reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznet Curves. Serie Research Memoranda 0048. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.Google Scholar
  30. Diermeier, D., & Fong, P. (2009). Endogenous limits on proposal power. Discussion Papers 1464, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.Google Scholar
  31. Doring, H. (1995). Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe. Manheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES)/University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
  32. Duseigneur, G. (2003). Are the Green Parties still different? ECPR Joint Session of Workshops, April 2003.Google Scholar
  33. EDGAR/JRC. (2016). Various Indicators. Available through http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  34. Eslava, M. (2006). The political economy of fiscal policy: A survey. Universidad de los Andes. Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper 583.Google Scholar
  35. Fournel, S., Palacios, J., Morrissette, R., Villeneuve, J., Godbout, S., Heitz, M., et al. (2014). Gaseous emissions from on-farm combustion of dedicated energy crops: Influence of biomass properties. In Proceedings of American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers annual international meeting 2014, ASABE 2014.Google Scholar
  36. Garmann., S. (2014). Do government ideology and fragmentation matter for reducing CO2-emissions? Empirical evidence from OECD countries. Ecological Economics, 105, 1–10.Google Scholar
  37. Gudipudi, R., Fluschnik, T., Ros, A. G. C., Walther, C., & Kropp, J. P. (2016). City density and CO2 efficiency. Energy Policy, 91(C), 352–361.Google Scholar
  38. Gunther, J., & Montero, R. (2001). The anchors of partisanship: A comparative analysis of voting behavior in four southern European democracies. In P. Nikiforos Diamandouros & Richard Gunther (Eds.), Parties, politics, and democracy in the New Southern Europe. London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hazel, R., Paun, A., Chalmers, M., Yong, B., & Haddon, C. (Eds.). (2009). Making minority government work: Hung parliaments and the challenges for Westminster and Whitehall. London: Institute for Government.Google Scholar
  40. Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Sommerer, T. (2008). Environmental policy convergence: The impact of international harmonization, transnational communication, and regulatory competition. International Organization, 62(04), 553–587.Google Scholar
  41. Huan, Q. (1999). The relationships between Green Parties and environmental groups in Belgium, Germany and the U.K. In 27th ECPR workshop on “Environmental Protest in Comparative Perspective, 26–31 March 1999, Mannheim.Google Scholar
  42. Im, K., Pesaran, M., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.Google Scholar
  43. Jebli, M., & Youssef, S. (2017). The role of renewable energy and agriculture in reducing CO2 emissions: Evidence for North Africa countries. Ecological Indicators, 74, 295–301.Google Scholar
  44. Kantorowicz, J. (2016). Electoral systems and fiscal policy outcomes: Evidence from Poland. European Journal of Political Economy, 47, 36–60.Google Scholar
  45. Knill, C., Debus, M., & Heichel, S. (2010). Do parties matter in internationalised policy areas? The impact of political parties on environmental policy outputs in 18 OECD countries, 1970–2000. European Journal of Political Research, 49(3), 301–336.Google Scholar
  46. Loayza, N., Olaberria, E., Rigolini, J., & Christiaensen, J. (2012). Natural disasters and growth: Going beyond the averages. World Development, 40(7), 1317–1336.Google Scholar
  47. Longden, T. (2015). CO 2 intensity and the importance of country level differences: An analysis of the relationship between per capita emissions and population density. Working Papers 2015.47, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
  48. Loxbo, K., & Sjolin, M. (2016). Parliamentary opposition on the wane? The case of Sweden, 1970–2014. Government and Opposition, 52, 587–613.Google Scholar
  49. Meissner, K. (2016). Democratizing EU external relations: The European Parliament’s informal role in SWIFT, ACTA, and TTIP. European Foreign Affairs Review, 21(2), 269–288.Google Scholar
  50. Michel, J., Frau-Meigs, D., & Velez, I. (2017). Public policies in media and information literacy in Europe cross-country comparisons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Milfont, T., Wilson, M., & Sibley, C. (2017). The public’s belief in climate change and its human cause are increasing over time”. PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0174246.Google Scholar
  52. Mitic, P., Ivanovic, O., & Zdravkovic, A. (2017). A cointegration analysis of real GDP and CO2 emissions in transitional countries. Sustainability, 9(4), 568.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040568.Google Scholar
  53. Mourao, P. (2016). Income inequality in host countries and remittances: A discussion of the determinants of Portuguese emigrants’ remittances. International Migration, 54(5), 136–149.Google Scholar
  54. Mourao, P., & Martinho, V. (2016). Discussing structural breaks in the Portuguese regulation on forest fires—An economic approach. Land Use Policy., 54, 460–478.Google Scholar
  55. Moutinho, V., Madaleno, M., & Silva, P. (2016). Which factors drive CO2 emissions in EU-15? Decomposition and innovative accounting. Energy Efficiency, 9(5), 1087–1113.Google Scholar
  56. Muller-Rommel, F. (1994). Green parties under comparative perspective. ICPS Working Paper 99, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  57. Neumayer, E. (2003). Are left-wing party strength and corporatism good for the environment? Evidence from panel analysis of air pollution in OECD countries. Ecological Economics, 45(2), 203–220.Google Scholar
  58. Noy, I., & Vu, T. (2010). The economics of natural disasters in a developing country: The case of Vietnam. Journal of Asian Economics, 21, 345–354.Google Scholar
  59. OECD. (2016). Various indicators. Available through https://data.oecd.org/. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  60. Olters, J. (2001). Modeling politics with economic tools: A critical survey of the literature. IMF Working Paper WP/01/10.Google Scholar
  61. Owoye, O., & Onafowora, O. A. (2013). Carbon emissions and income trajectory in eight heterogeneous countries: The role of trade openness, energy consumption and population dynamics. Journal of Global Economy., 9(2), 87–125.Google Scholar
  62. Palfrey, T. (2012). Experiments in political economy. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Parkin, S. (2006). The origins and future of Green Parties: The UK, Europe and Beyond. In F. Zelko & C. Brinkmann (Eds.), Green Parties: Reflections on the first three Decades. Washington, DC: Heinrich Böll Foundation North America.Google Scholar
  64. Peraza, H. (2016). Evaluation the air quality from the electric generation of the generators in the province of Sancti Spiritus. Revista Cubana de Meteorología, 22(2), 126–140.Google Scholar
  65. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Poguntke, T. (2001). Green parties in national governments: From protest to acquiescence?. Keele European Parties Research Unit (KEPRU) Working Paper 9. Keele University.Google Scholar
  67. Raupach, M. R., Rayner, P. J., & Paget, M. (2010). Regional variations in spatial structure of nightlights, population density and fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 38(9), 4756–4764.Google Scholar
  68. Rohrschneider, R., & Miles, M. (2015). Representation through parties? Environmental attitudes and party stances in Europe in 2013. Environmental Politics, 24(4), 1–24.Google Scholar
  69. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.Google Scholar
  70. Roy, D. (2004). From promises to performance: Political manifestos and budget 2004–05. Economic and political weekly, 39(32), 3583–3585.Google Scholar
  71. Schmidt, M. (1996). When parties matter: A review of the possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 30, 155–183.Google Scholar
  72. Semykina, A., & Wooldridge, J. (2011). Estimation of dynamic panel data models with sample selection. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28(1), 47–61.Google Scholar
  73. Simone, E., & Mourao, P. (2016). Rhetoric on the economy: Have European parties changed their economic messages? Applied Economics, 48(22), 2022–2036.Google Scholar
  74. Steinberg, D. A., & Malhotra, K. (2014). The effect of authoritarian regime type on exchange rate policy. World Politics, 66(3), 491–529.Google Scholar
  75. Thurner, P., Brouard, S., Dolezal, M., & Mueller, W. (2017). The conflict over nuclear energy: Public opinion, protest movements, and green parties in comparative perspective. In W. Mullerm & P. Thurner (Eds.), The politics of nuclear energy in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tosun, J. (2014). Agricultural biotechnology in Central and Eastern Europe: Determinants of cultivation bans. Sociological Ruralis, 54(3), 362–381.Google Scholar
  77. Toumi, H. (2017). Causality links among renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in Africa: Evidence from a panel ARDL-PMG approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8850-7.Google Scholar
  78. Weber, G., & Cabras, I. (2017). The transition of Germany’s energy production, green economy, low-carbon economy, socio-environmental conflicts, and equitable society. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1222–1231.Google Scholar
  79. Wen, J., Yu, H., Gen-Fu, F., & Chang, C. (2016). Does government ideology influence environmental performance? Evidence based on a new dataset. Economic Systems., 40(2), 232–246.Google Scholar
  80. Wildavsky, A. (1992). The new politics of the budgetary process (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  81. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 25–51.Google Scholar
  82. Meng, L., & Huang, B. (2017). Shaping the relationship between economic development and carbon dioxide emissions at the local level: Evidence from spatial econometric models. Environmental and Resource Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0139-2.Google Scholar
  83. World Bank Database. (2015). Various indicators. Available http://data.worldbank.org/indicator. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  84. Zelko, F., & Brinkmann, C. (2006). Green Parties: Reflections on the first three Decades. Washington, DC: Heinrich Böll foundation north America.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics/NIPE, Economics and Management SchoolUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations