Advertisement

National environmental policies as shelter from the storm: specifying the relationship between extreme weather vulnerability and national environmental performance

  • Todd A. Eisenstadt
  • Daniel J. Fiorino
  • Daniela Stevens
Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Empirical evidence regarding what causes some nations to display better environmental performance than others is still needed. Several case-based studies exist, as do studies that focus on developed countries and OECD members, but little systematic work has compared environmental performance across a worldwide sample of nations to discern, at the domestic level, why some nations are more “green” than others. This paper uses the Environmental Performance Index (2014) to explore the association between environmental performance and “conventional wisdom” variables that scholars have used to explain performance. While the article debunks the traditional explanations of regime type and international treaty participation, it identifies more relevant determinants, namely, a nation’s vulnerability to extreme weather events. Using an ordinary least squares regression, we find that whether the country is democratic or authoritarian is not by itself significant; nor is whether the nation is a signatory to major international treaties. Instead, vulnerability measured as human and economic losses after extreme weather events impact environmental performance significantly. Future research should explore the strong possibility that the effects of political institutions on environmental performance are mitigated by other factors such vulnerability to climate change.

Keywords

Vulnerability Climate Extreme weather events Environmental performance EPI Environmental policy 

References

  1. Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):268–281Google Scholar
  2. Atici C (2009) Pollution without subsidy? What is the environmental performance index overlooking? Ecol Econ 68:1903–1907Google Scholar
  3. Barrett S, Graddy K (2000) Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environ Dev Econ 5(4):433–456Google Scholar
  4. Bättig MB, Bernauer T (2009) National institutions and global public goods: are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? Int Organ 63(2):281–308Google Scholar
  5. Bernauer T, Koubi V (2009) Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecol Econ 68(5):1355–1365Google Scholar
  6. Binder S, Neumayer E (2005) Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 55(4):527–538Google Scholar
  7. Böhringer C, Jochemc PEP (2007) Measuring the immeasurable. A survey of sustainability indices. Ecol Econ 63(1):1–8Google Scholar
  8. Cleary MR (2010) The sources of democratic responsiveness in Mexico. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  9. Crepaz M (1995) Explaining national variations of air pollution levels: political institutions and their impact on environmental policy-making. Environmental Politics 4(3):391–414Google Scholar
  10. Dasgupta S, Hamilton K, Pandey KD, Wheeler D (2006) Environment during growth: accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Dev 34(9):1597–1611Google Scholar
  11. Duwel A (2010) Democracy and the environment: the visibility factor, U.C., Davis, Working Paper. Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1582299. Accessed 17 Nov 2014
  12. Eisenstadt TA, West KJ (2017a) Opinion, vulnerability, and living with extraction on Ecuador’s oil frontier: where the debate between development and environmentalism gets personal. Comp Polit 49(1):231–251Google Scholar
  13. Eisenstadt TA, West KJ (2017b) Indigenous belief systems, science, and resource extraction: climate change attitudes in Ecuador and the Global South. Global Environmental Politics 17(1):40–60Google Scholar
  14. Eisenstadt, Todd A. and Karleen Jones West Who speaks for nature? Indigenous rights movements, public opinion, and the Petro-State in Ecuador. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019 forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  15. Emerson JW, Hsu A, Levy MA et al. (2012) Environmental performance index and pilot trend environmental performance index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and PolicyGoogle Scholar
  16. Equatorial Guinea ON Line. Equatorial Guinea: ministries of mines and environment work together for sustainable energy. Retrieved from: http://equatorialguineaonline.com/equatorial-guinea-ministries-mines-environment-work-together-sustainable-energy. Accessed 5 June 2015
  17. Esty DC, Porter M (2005) National environmental performance: an empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environ Dev Econ 10(04):381–389Google Scholar
  18. Esty DC, Levy MA, Srebotnjak T, de Sherbinin A, Kim CH, Anderson B (2006) Pilot Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiorino D (2011) Explaining national environmental performance: approaches, evidence, and implications. Policy Sci 44(4):367–389Google Scholar
  20. Fredriksson PG, Wollscheid JR (2007) Democratic institutions versus autocratic regimes: the case of environmental policy. Public Choice 130(3–4):381–393Google Scholar
  21. Fredriksson PG, List JA, Millimet DL (2004) Chasing the smokestack: strategic policymaking with multiple instruments. Reg Sci Urban Econ, Elsevier 34(4):387–410Google Scholar
  22. Füssel H-M (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Chang 17(2):155–167Google Scholar
  23. Gallagher M, Hanson JK (2009) Coalitions, carrots, and sticks: economic inequality and authoritarian states. Polit Sci Polit 42(4):667–672Google Scholar
  24. Gallagher KP and Thacker SC (2008) Democracy, income, and environmental quality, Political Economy Research Institute, Working Paper Number 164, University of Massachusetts at AmherstGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallego-Álvarez I, Vicente-Galindo MP, Galindo-Villardón MP, Rodríguez-Rosa M (2014) Environmental performance in countries worldwide: determinant factors and multivariate analysis. Sustainability 6:7807–7832Google Scholar
  26. Gandhi J, Lust-Okar E (2009) Elections under authoritarianism. Annu Rev Polit Sci 12:403–422Google Scholar
  27. Gandhi J, Przeworski A (2006) Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Econ Polit 18(1):1–26Google Scholar
  28. Gates S, Gleditsch P, Neumayer E (2002) Environmental commitment, democracy and inequality. A background paper to World Development Report 2003. London School of Economics, The World BankGoogle Scholar
  29. Gobierno de la República de Honduras (2015) Contribución Prevista y Determinada a Nivel Nacional de la República de Honduras. Retrieved from: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Honduras/1/Honduras%20INDC_esp.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2016
  30. Gough C, Shackley S (2001) The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic communities and NGOs. Int Aff 77(2):329–345Google Scholar
  31. Grafton Q, Knowles S (2004) Social capital and national environmental performance: a cross-sectional analysis. J Environ Dev 13(4):336–370Google Scholar
  32. Haas P (1992) Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35Google Scholar
  33. Hale H (2011) Hybrid regimes: when democracy and autocracy mix. In: Brown N (ed) The dynamics of democratization: dictatorship, development, and diffusion. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison, Kathryn, and Lisa Sundstrom, Introduction: global commons, domestic decisions. in Harrison and Sundstrom (eds.), Global commons, domestic decisions, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010, pp. 1–22Google Scholar
  35. Hochstetler K (2012) Democracy and the environment in Latin America and Eastern Europe. In: Steinberg PF, VanDeveer SD (eds) Comparative environmental politics: theory, practice, and prospects. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Hochstetler K, Viola E (2012) Brazil and the politics of climate change: beyond the global commons. Environmental Politics 21(5):753–771Google Scholar
  37. Hsu A, Emerson J, Levy M, de Sherbinin A, Johnson L, Malik O, Schwartz J, Jaiteh M (2014) The 2014 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  38. International Environmental Agreements (IEA) (2014a) Membership information for: Convention On Biological Diversity. Database Project, IEA. Retrieved from: http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?pg=4&query=membership_long_form&mitch_id=3128&membership_format=action. Accessed 17 Oct 2014
  39. International Environmental Agreements (IEA) (2014b) Membership information for: Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer. Database Project, IEA. Retrieved from: http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?pg=2&query=membership_long_form&mitch_id=3021&membership_format=action. Accessed 15 Oct 2014
  40. International Environmental Agreements (IEA) (2014c) Membership information for: United Nations Convention On The Law Of The Sea. Database Project, IEA. Retrieved from: http://iea.uoregon.edu/page.php?query=membership_long_form&mitch_id=2947&membership_format=wide. Accessed 18 Oct 2014
  41. Jahn D (1998) Environmental performance and policy regimes: explaining variations in 18 OECD-countries. Policy Sci 31(2):107–131Google Scholar
  42. Kaufman D et al The worldwide governance indicators. Methodology and analytical issues, Policy Research Working Paper 5430, The World Bank Development Research Group, Macroeconomics and Growth Team, September 2010. Retrieved from http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=966127081000030120113093005001020108040064059016095049073103073078118022090093009075023058099106014008005099100113120072003106059000075062031067111104071017007003040013086112111103097009122117114096074073099030001117109119077082024098069120114020&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2. Accessed 18 June 2015
  43. Kerret D, Shvartzvald R (2012) Explaining differences in the environmental performance of countries: a comparative study. Environ Sci Technol 46(22):12329–12336Google Scholar
  44. Kilburn HW (2014) Religion and foundations of American public opinion towards global climate change. Env Polit 23(3):473–489Google Scholar
  45. Kim SY, Wolinsky-Nahmias Y (2014) Cross-national public opinion on climate change: the effects of affluence and vulnerability. Global Environ Polit 14(1):79–106Google Scholar
  46. Konisky DM, Milyo J, Richardson LE (2008) Environmental policy attitudes: issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Soc Sci Q 89(5):1066–1085Google Scholar
  47. Kreft S and Eckstein D (2013) Global Climate Risk Index 2014, who suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2012 and 1993 to 2012. Germanwatch Organization. Retrieved from: http://germanwatch.org/en/download/8551.pdf.Accessed 13 Oct 2014
  48. Kreft S and D Eckstein (2014) Global Climate Risk Index 2015. Who Suffers Most From Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2013 and 1994 to 2012Google Scholar
  49. LeVan AC, Fashagba JO, McMahon ER (eds) (2015) African State Governance. Subnational Politics and National Power. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Li Q, Reuveny R (2006) Democracy and environmental degradation. Int Stud Q 50:935–956Google Scholar
  51. Liefferink D, Arts B, Kamstra J, Ooijevaar J (2009) Leaders and laggards in environmental policy: a quantitative analysis of domestic policy outputs. Journal of European Public Policy 16(5):677–700Google Scholar
  52. Marshall MG, Gurr TR (2013) Polity IV Project. Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2012, Center for Systemic Peace. Retrieved from: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html. Accessed 23 Aug 2014
  53. Martínez-Alier J (2002) The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  54. Matthews M (2001) Cleaning up their acts: shifts of environment and energy policies in pluralist and corporatist state. Policy Stud J 29(3):478–498Google Scholar
  55. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194Google Scholar
  57. Midlarsky MI (1998) Democracy and the environment: an empirical assessment. J Peace Res 35(3):341–361Google Scholar
  58. Minamb. Misiones y Proyectos. Retrieved from: http://www.minamb.gob.ve/. Accessed 29 Oct 2014
  59. Moef. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Intended nationally determined contributions, September 2015. Retrieved from: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Bangladesh/1/INDC_2015_of_Bangladesh.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  60. Neumayer E (2002) Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. J Peace Res 39(2):139–164Google Scholar
  61. Ozymy J, Rey D (2013) Wild spaces or polluted places: contentious policies, consensus institutions, and environmental performance in industrialized democracies. Global Environmental Politics 13(4):81–100Google Scholar
  62. Payne RA (1995) Freedom and the environment. J Democr 6(3):41–55Google Scholar
  63. Putnam R (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. Int Organ, Summer 42:427–460Google Scholar
  64. Recchia SP (2002) International environmental treaty engagement in 19 democracies. Policy Stud J 30:470–494Google Scholar
  65. Scruggs L (2003) Sustaining abundance: environmental performance in industrial democracies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. Sprinz D, Vaahtoranta T (1994) The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. Int Organ 48(1 (winter):77–105Google Scholar
  67. SOPAC (2005) Building resilience in SIDS. The environmental vulnerability index (EVI), Technical report, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, SuvaGoogle Scholar
  68. UNFCCC, INDCs as communicated by parties, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx. Accessed 5 Feb 2016
  69. United Nations (2012) Overview of needs and assistance. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Retrieved from; http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/DPRK%20Overview%20Of%20Needs%20And%20Assistance%202012.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2014
  70. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2014) Status of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved from: https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php. Accessed 10 Oct 2014
  71. United Nations Treaty Collection (2014) Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. Retrieved from: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-3&chapter=27&lang=en. Accessed 11 Oct 2014
  72. Vasquez P (2014) Oil sparks in the Amazon: local conflicts, indigenous populations, and natural resources. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  73. Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees, Unser ökologischer Fußabdruck. in Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1997Google Scholar
  74. Weidner H (2002) Capacity building for ecological modernization: lessons from cross-national research. Am Behav Sci 45:1340–1368Google Scholar
  75. World Bank 2012. Worldwide Governance Indicators. Retreived from: (https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/worldwide-governance-indicators). Accessed October 1, 2018
  76. World Bank (2012a) GDP per capita, US current dollars, 2012, The World Bank Data. Retrieved from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed 12 Oct 2014
  77. World Bank (2012b) Population, density, The World Bank Data. Retrieved from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST. Accessed 3 Aug 2014
  78. World Bank (2012c) GINI index (World Bank estimate), The World Bank Data. Retrieved from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?display=default. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
  79. World Bank (2013) Fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total). Retrieved from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS. Accessed 13 Nov 2014

Copyright information

© AESS 2018
corrected publication 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations