Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 241–262 | Cite as

Who blames corruption for the poor enforcement of environmental laws? Survey evidence from Brazil

  • Michaël Aklin
  • Patrick Bayer
  • S. P. Harish
  • Johannes Urpelainen
Research Article


Who blames corruption for the poor enforcement of environmental laws? The answer to this question is important since corruption is an important reason why environmental policies are not properly enforced, but previous studies of environmental public opinion do not address the issue. We analyze data from a survey fielded in Brazil in June 2012, immediately preceding the Rio+20 environmental summit. We test hypotheses on income, education, and perception of corruption as a cause of poor enforcement of environmental policy. We find that wealthy individuals are more likely to associate corruption with enforcement failure than their poorer counterparts. However, education is not associated with the belief that corruption is a primary cause of enforcement failure. These results suggest that since wealthy Brazilians have a higher exposure to corruption because of their interaction with government officials, they understand the role of corruption in policy failure. Conversely, the kind of general information that education offers does not raise concern about the role of corruption in environmental policy. The results have important implications particularly in democratic societies, where governments have stronger incentives to address the problem if the concerned public associates corruption with enforcement failure.


Environment Corruption Latin America Brazil Public Opinion 

Supplementary material

10018_2014_76_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (115 kb)
PDF (114 KB)


  1. Aklin M, Urpelainen J (forthcoming) The global spread of environmental ministries: domestic-international interactions: International Studies QuarterlyGoogle Scholar
  2. Aklin M, Bayer P, Harish SP, Urpelainen J (2013) Understanding environmental policy preferences: new evidence from Brazil. Ecol Econ 96:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen LE, Granger CWJ (2007) Modeling Amazon deforestation for policy purposes: reconciling conservation priorities and human development. Environ Econ Policy Stud 8(3):201–210Google Scholar
  4. Ascher W (1999) Why governments waste natural resources: policy failures in developing countries. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  5. Asproudis E (2011) Revisiting environmental groups and members’ behaviour: budget, size and (im)pure altruism. Environ Econ Policy Stud 13(2):139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechtel MM, Tosun J (2009) Changing economic openness for environmental policy convergence: when can trade agreements induce convergence of environmental regulation? Int Stud Q 53(4):931–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blocker JT, Eckberg DL (1989) Environmental issues as women’s issues: general concerns and local hazards. Soc Sci Q 70(3):586–593Google Scholar
  8. Bloom DE (1995) International public opinion on the environment. Science 269(5222):354–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth W (1989) Monitoring the fate of the forests from space. Science 243(4897):1428–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brechin SR, Kempton W (1994) Global environmentalism: a challenge to the postmaterialism thesis? Soc Sci Q 75(2):245–269Google Scholar
  11. Cole MA (2007) Corruption, income and the environment: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):637–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole MA, Elliott RJR, Fredriksson PG (2006) Endogenous pollution havens: does FDI influence environmental regulations? Scand J Econ 108(1):157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damania R, Fredriksson PG, List JA (2003) Trade liberalization, corruption, and environmental policy formation: theory and evidence. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3):490–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Oliveira JAP (2002) Implementing environmental policies in developing countries through decentralization: the case of protected areas in Bahia, Brazil. World Dev 30(10):1713–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Desai, U (eds) (1998) Ecological policy and politics in developing countries: economic growth, democracy, and environment. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Diekmann A, Franzen A (1999) The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environ Behav 31(4):540–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietz T, Stern P, Guagnano G (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ Behav 30(4):450–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dobson S, Ramlogan-Dobson C (2012) Why is corruption less harmful to income inequality in Latin America? World Dev 40(8):1534–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drummond J, Barros-Platiau AF (2006) Brazilian environmental laws and policies, 1934–2002: a critical overview. Law Policy 28(1):83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunlap R (1975) The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions. Environ Behav 7(4):428–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunlap RE, Mertig AG (1995) Global concern for the environment: is affluence a prerequisite? J Soc Issues 51(4):121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farzin HY, Bond CA (2006) Democracy and environmental quality. J Dev Econ 81(1):213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farzin YH (2003) The effects of emissions standards on industry. J Regul Econ 24(3):315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fearnside PM (2005) Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conserv Biol 19(3):680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandes E (1992) Law, politics and environmental protection in Brazil. J Environ Law 4(1):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Franzen A (2003) Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Soc Sci Q 84(2):297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franzen A, Meyer R (2010) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur Sociol Rev 26(2):219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fredriksson PG, Vollebergh HRJ, Dijkgraaf E (2004) Corruption and energy efficiency in OECD countries: theory and evidence. J Environ Econ Manag 47(2):207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fredriksson PG, Svensson J (2003) Political instability, corruption and policy formation: the case of environmental policy. J Public Econ 87(7–8):1383–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fredriksson PG, List JA, Millimet DL (2003) Bureaucratic corruption, environmental policy and inbound US FDI: theory and evidence. J Public Econ 87(7–8):1407–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fried BJ (2012) Distributive politics and conditional cash transfers: the case of Brazil’s Bolsa Famiĺia. World Dev 40(5):1042–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fried BJ, Lagunes P, Venkataramani A (2010) Corruption and inequality at the crossroad: a multimethod study of bribery and discrimination in Latin America. Latin Am Res Rev 45(1):76–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goodland RJA, Irwin HS (1975) Amazon jungle: green hell to red desert? An ecological discussion of the environmental impact of the highway construction program in the Amazon Basin. Elsevier Scientific Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenpeace (2001) Partners in mahogany crime: Amazon at the mercy of ‘gentelmen’s agreements’. October 1
  35. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guimarães R (1991) The ecopolitics of development in the third world: politics and environment in Brazil. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  37. Hochstetler K, Keck ME (2007) Greening Brazil: environmentalism in state and society. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Howell SE, Laska SB (1992) The changing face of the environmental coalition: a research note. Environ Behav 24(1):134–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu J-L, Huang C-H, Chu W-K (2004) Bribery, hierarchical government, and incomplete environmental enforcement. Environ Econ Policy Stud 6(3):177–96Google Scholar
  40. Hunt J, Laszlo S (2012) Is bribery really regressive? Bribery’s costs, benefits, and mechanisms. World Dev 40(2):355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit Sci Polit 28(1):57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones RE, Dunlap RE (1992) The social bases of environmental concern: have they changed over time? Rural Sociol 57(1):28–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kellman JE (2001–2002) The Brazilian legal tradition and environmental protection: friend or foe. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 25:145–167Google Scholar
  44. King G, Tomz M, Wittenberg J (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. Am J Polit Sci 44(2):341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewinsohn TM, Prado PI (2005) How many species are there in Brazil? Conserv Biol 19(3):619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. López R, Mitra S (2000) Corruption, pollution, and the Kuznets environment curve. J Environ Econ Manag 40(2):137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Melgar N, Rossi M, Smith TW (2010) The perception of corruption. Int J Public Opin Res 22(1):120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mittermeier RA, Da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Brandon K (2005) A brief history of biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Conserv Biol 19(3):601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mocan N (2008) What determines corruption? International evidence from microdata. Econ Inq 46(4):493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mohai P (1992) Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Soc Nat Resour 5(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mohai P, Twight B (1987) Age and environmentalism: an elaboration of the Buttel model using national survey evidence. Soc Sci Q 68(4):798–815Google Scholar
  52. Moran EF (1994) The law, politics, and economics of Amazonian deforestation. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 1(2):Article 6Google Scholar
  53. Ohdoko T, Yoshida K (2012) Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14(2):147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olken B (2007) Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy 115(2):200–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pellegrini L, Gerlagh R (2006) Corruption, Democracy, and Environmental Policy: An Empirical Contribution to the Debate. The Journal of Environment & Development 15(3):332–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rylands AB, Brandon K (2005) Brazilian Protected Areas. Conservation Biology 19(3):612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scruggs L (2003) Sustaining Abundance: Environmental Performance in Industrial Democracies. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Seligson MA (2002) The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries. Journal of Politics 64(2):408–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seligson MA (2006) The Measurement and Impact of Corruption Victimization: Survey Evidence from Latin America. World Development 34(2):381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Setzer AW, Pereira MC (1991) Amazonia Biomass Burning in 1987 and an Estimate of their Tropospheric Emissions. Ambio 20:19–22Google Scholar
  61. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior 25(5):322–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stigler GJ (1972) Economic Competition and Political Competition. Public Choice 13(1):91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sundström A (2012) Corruption in the commons: why bribery hampers enforcement of environmental regulations in South African fisheries. University of Gothenburg Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  64. Tabarelli M, Pinto LP, Silva JMC, Hirota M, Bedê L (2005) Challenges and Opportunities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conservation Biology 19(3):695–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Transparency International (2012) Corruption Perceptions Index
  66. Van Liere K, Dunlap R (1980) The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypothesis, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(2):181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Liere K, Dunlap R (1981) Environmental Concern: Does it Make a Difference how it’s Measured. Environment and Behavior 13(6):651–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Veríssimo A, Barreto P, Mattos M, Tarifa R, Uhl C (1992) Logging impacts and prospects for sustainable forest management in an old Amazonian frontier: the case of Paragominas. Forest Ecol Manag 55(Logging Impacts and Prospects 1–4):169–199Google Scholar
  69. Vining J, Ebreo A (1990) What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of Recyclers and Nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 22(1):55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Welsch H (2004) Corruption, Growth, and the Environment: A Cross-Country Analysis. Environment and Development Economics 9(5):663–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wittman DA (1995) The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political Institutions are Efficient. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  72. You J-S, Khagram S (2005) A Comparative Study of Inequality and Corruption. American Sociological Review 70(1):136–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaël Aklin
    • 1
  • Patrick Bayer
    • 2
  • S. P. Harish
    • 1
  • Johannes Urpelainen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PoliticsNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations