Configurational conditions of national carbon intensity: a fuzzy set analysis of 136 countries
- 69 Downloads
Drawing on the insights from the literature in environmental economics and politics, this study examines the configurational conditions of national carbon intensity by constructing a new analytical framework integrating six factors, i.e. population, affluence, industrial structure, energy intensity, urbanization rate and democracy. A fuzzy set analysis of 136 countries shows that national carbon intensity is not determined by any single factor but rather by the combined effects of multiple factors. There are two configurational pathways to low-carbon development while four pathways to high-carbon development, each with its own configuration. Low-carbon development occurs most often in those affluent, highly urbanized and democratic countries with low intensity of energy use, while high-carbon development is most likely in those small, poor countries with high intensity of energy use. This study also shows that the role of particular factor should be understood in the context as its combinations with different sets of other factors may produce opposite effects on national carbon intensity. That is, the policy efforts concentrated on single factor may be ineffective to reduce carbon intensity. These findings permit a more contextualized and systematic understanding of the determinants of national carbon intensity.
KeywordsCarbon intensity Configurational conditions Qualitative comparative analysis Cross-national data
The author thanks two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft.
This work was supported by the China National Social Science Foundation (No. 18CZZ023).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
- Bueno de Mesquita B, Smith A, Siverson RM, Morrow JD (2003) The logic of political survival. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Dusa A (2018) QCA with R: a comprehensive description. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Garcia-Castro R, Ariño M (2016) A general approach to panel data set-theoretic research. J Adv Manag Sci Inf Syst 2:63–76Google Scholar
- Greckhamer T, Misangyi VF, Fiss PC (2013) The two QCAs: from a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. In: Configurational theory and methods in organizational research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 49–75Google Scholar
- Hadenius A, Teorell J (2005) Assessing alternative indices of democracy. Concepts & Methods Working Papers 6. International Political Science AssociationGoogle Scholar
- Heilbroner RL (1974) An inquiry into the human prospect. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Herzog T, Baumert KA, Pershing J (2006) Target--intensity: an analysis of greenhouse gas intensity targets. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- Mackie JL (1965) Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2:245–264Google Scholar
- Ophuls W (1977) Ecology and the politics of scarcity. W.H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Ragin CC (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
- Ragin CC (2009) Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Configurational comparative methods: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques 51:87–121Google Scholar
- Teorell J (2010) Determinants of democratization: explaining regime change in the world, 1972–2006. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar