Skip to main content

Environmental Performance in Socially Fragmented Countries

Environmental and Resource Economics volume 55, pages 119–140 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Social fragmentation is often associated with reduced co-operative behaviour, which undermines public goods provision (such as environmental protection). The few studies linking social fragmentation and environmental performance have been confined to using ethnic fractionalisation as the only measure of social heterogeneity. In this paper, we contribute to the literature in a twofold manner. First, we bring into the analysis alternative measures of social fragmentation (i.e. religious fractionalisation, ethnic/religious polarisation), that have received considerable attention in development economics in recent years. Second, this is the first study to our knowledge that makes use of a large panel dataset of several environmental indicators to explore links between ethnic/religious diversity and the environment. We find that all indices of social fragmentation are negatively linked to measures of environmental quality, although for some of them the size of the effect is larger in the case of polarisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Here we follow the development economics literature and focus on ethnic and religious heterogeneity when discussing the impacts of social fragmentation. Social fragmentation can also appear in other forms (e.g. caste, occupation, age).

  2. There is a non-linear relationship between these two indices of social fragmentation, and an in-depth discussion on their construction can be found in Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2005a).

  3. In their rent-seeking model, individuals are distributed in \(N\) groups that allocate resources (effort) to enhance the probability of success in appropriating the contested resources and maximise their net benefits (given their probability of success, the anticipated utility related to their preferred outcome and the cost of rent-seeking effort; see Montalvo and Reynal-Querol 2005a, pp. 302–303).

  4. Esteban and Ray (2011) also emphasize the distinction between fractionalisation and polarisation in explaining the extent of conflictual behaviour given the nature of the contestable good.

  5. Regional dummies are included in all regressions (Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, South Asia, Latin America). “Appendix Table 8” lists all variable descriptions and data sources. Descriptive statistics are presented in “Appendix Table 9”.

  6. The World Bank estimates this at $20 per ton of carbon times the number of tones of carbon dioxide emitted. In that respect, this measure rather captures the carbon intensity of overall production, rather than damages attributed to \(\text{ CO}_{2}\)-induced pollution and global warming.

  7. The results are hence in accordance with Roberts and Grimes (1997) and Apergis and Payne (2009).

  8. For a discussion on how population density may encourage higher rates of savings and spending on education (and hence enhance adjusted net savings) as a result of increasing returns to scale in production and specialisation in labour markets, see Becker et al. (1999), as well as De Mello and Zilberman (2008).

  9. There is very few data (less than 35 observations) when using the Adjusted Net Savings index as a proxy for environmental performance.

  10. This measure of democracy looks at the extent of political rights and civil liberties across countries (for a discussion see Emerson 2006).

  11. Results are available from the authors.

References

  • Abadie A (2006) Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism. Am Econ Rev 96(2):50–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, Baqir R, Easterly W (1999) Public goods and ethnic divisions. Q. J Econ 114(4):1243–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, Devleeschauwer A, Easterly W, Kurlat S, Wacziarg R (2003) Fractionalization. J Econ Growth 8(2):155–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, La Ferrara E (2000) Participation in heterogeneous communities. Q J Econ 115(3):847–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina A, La Ferrara E (2005) Ethnic diversity and economic performance. J Econ Lit 43(3):762–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annett A (2001) Social fractionalization, political instability, and the size of the government. IMF Staff Pap 48(3):561–592

    Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) \(\text{ CO}_{2}\) emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 37(8):3282–3286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arezki R, Brückner M (2012) Commodity windfalls, polarization, and net foreign assets: Panel data evidence on the voracity effect. J Int Econ 86(2):318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baggio J, Papyrakis E (2010) Ethnic diversity, property rights and natural resources. Dev Econ 48(4):473–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett DB (1982) World christian encyclopedia: a comparative survey of churches and religions in the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Beck T (2008) The econometrics of finance and growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 4608

  • Becker GS (1957) The economics of discrimination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS, Glaeser EL, Murphy KN (1999) Population and economic growth. Am Econ Rev 89(2):145–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos NF, Kuzeyev V (2011) On the dynamics of ethnic fractionalization. Am J Polit Sci 51(3):620–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos NF, Saleh A, Kuzeyev V (2011) Dynamic ethnic fractionalization and economic growth. J Int Trade Econ Dev 20(2):129–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole MA (2007) Corruption, income and the environment: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):637–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier P (2001) Implications of ethnic diversity. Econ Policy 16(32):127–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damania R (2002) Environmental controls with corrupt bureaucrats. Environ Dev Econ 7(3):407–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Damette O, Delacote P (2011) Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecol Econ 70(6):1211–1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das J, DiRienzo CE (2010) Is ethnic diversity good for the environment? A cross-country analysis. Environ Dev 19(1):91–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Mello JM, Zilberman E (2008) Does crime affect economic decisions? An empirical investigation of savings in a high-crime environment. BE J Econ Anal Policy 8(1):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • De Soysa I, Neumayer E (2005) False prophet, or genuine savior? Assessing the effects of economic openness on sustainable development, 1980–99. Intern Organ 59(3):731–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon RT, Norman CS (2006) Does the environmental Kuznets curve describe how individual countries behave? Land Econ 82(2):291–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Dincer OC (2008) Ethnic and religious diversity and corruption. Econ Lett 99(1):98–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulal HB, Foa R, Knowles S (2011) Social capital and cross-country environmental performance. J Environ Dev 20(2):121–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly W, Levine R (1997) Africa’s growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions. Q J Econ 112(4):1203–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson PM (2006) Corruption, competition, and democracy. J Dev Econ 81(1):193–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteban J, Ray D (2008) On the salience of ethnic conflict. Am Econ Rev 98(5):2185–2202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteban J, Ray D (2011) Linking conflict to inequality and polarization. Am Econ Rev 101(4):1345–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty DC, Porter ME (2005) National environmental performance: an empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environ Dev Econ 10(4):391–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon JD, Laitin DD (1996) Explaining interethnic cooperation. Am Polit Sci Rev 90(4):715–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson P, Svensson J (2003) Political instability, corruption and policy formation: the case of environmental policy. J Public Econ 87(7–8):1383–1405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson P, Vollebergh HRJ, Dijkgraaf E (2004) Corruption and energy efficiency in OECD countries: theory and evidence. J Envirn Econ Manag 47(2):207–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House (2010) Freedom in the world. Freedom House, Washington DC

  • Galeotti M, Lanza A, Pauli F (2006) Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for \(\text{ CO}_{2}\) emissions: a robustness exercise. Ecol Econ 57(1):152–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser EL, Saks RE (2006) Corruption in America. J Public Econ 90(6–7):1053–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsevski V, Kasischke E, Dempewolf J, Loboda T, Grossmann F (2012) Analysis of the impacts of armed conflict on the Eastern Afromontane forest region of the South Sudan–Uganda border using multitemporal Landsat imaginery. Remote Sens Environ 118(2):10–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafton RQ, Knowles S (2004) Social capital and national environmental performance. Environ Dev 13(4):336–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greif A (1993) Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: the Maghribi traders’ coalition. Am Econ Rev 83(3):525–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Habyarimana J, Humphreys M, Posner DN, Weinstein JM (2007) Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision. Am Polit Sci Rev 101(4):709–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halaby CN (2004) Panel models in sociological research: theory into practice. Annu Rev Sociol 30:507–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heston A, Summers R, Aten B (2010) Penn World Table Version 6.3. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt_index.php

  • Hsiao C (2007) Panel data analysis—advantages and challenges. Test 16(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodler R (2006) The curse of natural resources in fractionalized countries. Eur Econ Rev 50(6):1367–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2007) Governance matters VI: governance indicators for 1996–2006. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4280. World Bank, Washington DC

  • Keefer P, Knack S (2002) Polarization, politics and property rights: links between inequality and growth. Public Choice 111(1–2):127–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kummu M, Varis O (2011) The world by latitudes: a global analysis of human population, development level and environment across the north-south axis over the past half century. Appl Geogr 31(1):495–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Ferrara E (2003) Kin groups and reciprocity: a model of credit transactions in Ghana. Am Econ Rev 93(5):1730–1751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamla MJ (2009) Long-run determinants of pollution: a robustness analysis. Ecol Econ 69(1):135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larcker DF, Rusticus TO (2010) On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. J Acc Econ 49(3):186–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW (2007) The relationships between net primary productivity, human population density and species conservation. J Biogeogr 34(2):201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miguel E (2004) Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya versus Tanzania. World Polit 56(3):327–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miguel E, Gugerty MK (2005) Ethnic diversity, social sanctions and public goods in Kenya. J Public Econ 89(11–12):2325–2368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M (2005a) Ethnic diversity and economic development. J Dev Econ 76(2):293–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M (2005b) Ethnic polarization, potential conflict, and civil wars. Am Econ Rev 95(2):796–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M (2008) Discrete polarization with an application to the determinants of genocides. Econ J 118(533):1835–1865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalvo JG, Reynal-Querol M (2010) Ethnic polarization and the duration of civil wars. Econ Govern 11(2):123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer E (2002) Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. J Peace Res 39(2):139–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayotou T (1997) Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environ Dev Econ 2(4):465–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini L, Gerlagh R (2006) Corruption, democracy and environmental performance. Environ Dev 15(3):332–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts TJ, Grimes PE (1997) Carbon intensity and economic development 1962–1991: a brief exploration of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 25(2):191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi A (2003) The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: evidence from polled cross-country data. Ecol Econ 44(1):29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson J (1998) Investment, property rights and political instability: theory and evidence. Eur Econ Rev 42(7):1317–1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torras M, Boyce JK (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman D (2000) The causes of corruption: a cross-national study. J Public Econ 76(3):399–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Videras J, Bordoni CJ (2006) Ethnic heterogeneity and the enforcement of environmental regulation. Rev Soc Econ 64(4):539–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigdor J (2004) Community composition and collective action: analyzing initial mail response to the 2000 Census. Rev Econ Stat 86(1):303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2010) World development indicators, Washington DC

  • Ziblatt D (2008) Why some cities provide more public goods than others? A subnational comparison of the provision of public goods in German cities in 1912. Stud Comp Int Dev 43(3):273–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the editor and two anonymous referees for their many helpful comments on the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Elissaios Papyrakis

  2. School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    Elissaios Papyrakis

Authors
  1. Elissaios Papyrakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elissaios Papyrakis.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8 and 9

Table 7 Correlation matrix
Full size table
Table 8 List of variables used in the regressions
Full size table
Table 9 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Papyrakis, E. Environmental Performance in Socially Fragmented Countries. Environ Resource Econ 55, 119–140 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9619-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9619-6

Keywords

  • Environmental performance
  • Fractionalisation
  • Polarisation

JEL Classification

  • Q50
  • Z13