Public Choice

, Volume 133, Issue 1–2, pp 231–251 | Cite as

Kyoto Protocol cooperation: Does government corruption facilitate environmental lobbying?

  • Per G. Fredriksson
  • Eric NeumayerEmail author
  • Gergely Ujhelyi


Does environmental lobbying affect the probability of environmental treaty ratification? Does the level of government corruption play a role for the success of such lobbying? In this paper, we propose that a more corruptible government may be more responsive to the demands of the environmental lobby. We use several stratified hazard models and panel data from 170 countries on the timing of Kyoto Protocol ratification to test this hypothesis. We find that increased environmental lobby group activity raises the probability of ratification, and the effect rises with the degree of corruption.


Corruption Political economy Agreements Ratification Environmentalism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aidt, T. S. (1998). Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy. Journal of Public Economics, 69, 1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aidt, T. S. (2003). Economic analysis of corruption: A survey. Economic Journal, 113, F632–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aidt, T. S. (2004). The rise of environmentalism, pollution taxes and intra-industry trade. Economics of Governance, 6, 1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beron, K. J., Murdoch, J. C., & Vijverberg, W. P. M. (2003). Why cooperate? Public goods, economic power, and the Montreal Protocol. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 286–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campos, N. F., & Giovannoni, F. (2007). Lobbying, corruption and political influence. Public Choice, 131, 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collet, D. (1999). Modelling survival data in medical research. London: Chapman & Hall. Google Scholar
  8. Conconi, P. (2002). Green and producer lobbies: Competition or alliance? In S. M. Murshed (Ed.), Issues in positive political economy. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  9. Conconi, P. (2003). Green lobbies and transboundary pollution in large open economies. Journal of International Economics, 59, 399–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 412–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Congleton, R. D. (2001). Governing the global environmental commons: The political economy of international environmental treaties and institutions. In G. G. Schulze & H. Ursprung (Eds.), International environmental economics: A survey of the issues (pp. 241–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Cox, D. R., & Oakes, D. (1984). Analysis of survival data. New York: Chapman and Hall. Google Scholar
  13. Cropper, M. L., Evans, W. L., Berardi, S. J., Ducla-Soares, M. M., & Portney, P. R. (1992). The determinants of pesticide regulation: A statistical analysis of EPA decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 175–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deacon, R. T. (1999). The political economy of environment-development relationships: A preliminary framework. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from University of California at Santa Barbara, Department of Economics Web site:
  15. Durden, G. C., Shogren, J. F., & Silberman, J. I. (1991). The effects of interest group pressure on coal strip-mining legislation. Social Science Quarterly, 72, 239–250. Google Scholar
  16. Fowler, L. L., & Shaiko, R. G. (1987). The grass roots connection: Environmental activists and senate roll calls. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 484–510. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredriksson, P. G., & Gaston, N. (2000). Ratification of the 1992 Climate Change Convention: What determines legislative delay? Public Choice, 104, 345–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fredriksson, P. G., Neumayer, E., Damania, R., & Gates, S. (2005). Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49, 343–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fredriksson, P. G., & Svensson, J. (2003). Political instability, corruption and policy formation: The case of environmental policy. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1383–1405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredriksson, P. G., & Ujhelyi, G. (2005). Political institutions, interest groups, and the ratification of international environmental agreements. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from Harvard University, Department of Economics Web site:
  21. Fredriksson, P. G., Vollebergh, H. R. J., & Dijkgraaf, E. (2004). Corruption and energy efficiency in OECD countries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 207–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grambsch, P. M., & Therneau, T. M. (1994). Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika, 81, 515–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1994). Protection for sale. American Economic Review, 84, 833–850. Google Scholar
  24. Harstad, B., & Svensson, J. (2006). Bribes, lobbying and development. CEPR Discussion Paper 5759. Centre for Economics Policy Research, London, UK. Google Scholar
  25. Hillman, A. L., & Ursprung, H. (1992). The influence of environmental concerns on the political determination of trade policy. In K. Anderson & R. Blackhurst (Eds.), The greening of world trade issues (pp. 195–220). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Google Scholar
  26. Hosmer Jr., D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Applied survival analysis – regression modeling of time to event data. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  27. Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 71–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalt, J. P., & Zupan, M. A. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics. American Economic Review, 74, 279–300. Google Scholar
  29. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2003). Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996–2002. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3106. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from World Bank Web site:
  30. Lancaster, T. (1990). The econometric analysis of transition data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  31. López, R., & Mitra, S. (2000). Corruption, pollution and the Kuznets environment curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 40, 137–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Millimet, D. L., List, J. A., & Stengos, T. (2003). The environmental Kuznets curve: Real progress or misspecified models? Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 1038–1047. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murdoch, J. C., & Sandler, T. (1997). A voluntary provision of a pure public good: The case of reduced CFC emissions and the Montreal Protocol. Journal of Public Economics, 63, 331–349. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murdoch, J. C., Sandler, T., & Vijverberg, W. P. M. (2003). The participation decision versus the level of participation in an environmental treaty: A spatial probit analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 337–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neumayer, E. (2002a). Does trade openness promote multilateral environmental cooperation? World Economy, 25, 815–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neumayer, E. (2002b). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 139–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pelzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 211–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riddel, M. (2003). Candidate eco-labeling and Senate campaign contributions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 177–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schulze, G. G., & Ursprung, H. (2001). The political economy of international trade and the environment. In G. G. Schulze (Ed.), International environmental economics: A survey of the issues (pp. 15–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  40. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management, 2, 3–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. VanGrasstek, C. (1992). The political economy of trade and the environment in the United States Senate. In P. Low (Ed.), Trade and the environment (pp. 227–243). Washington: World Bank. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per G. Fredriksson
    • 1
  • Eric Neumayer
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gergely Ujhelyi
    • 3
  1. 1.University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.London School of EconomicsLondonUK
  3. 3.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations