Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Equality and Environmental Quality Nexus: the Case of OECD Countries

  • Research
  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the interaction between two opposite indicators of gender equality—women’s political empowerment index and neopatrimonial rule index—and environmental quality to elucidate further the mechanism behind the divergence between the theoretical and empirical literature on democratic rights and environmental quality nexus. By analyzing OECD country data between 1980 and 2018 and utilizing the augmented mean group (AMG) estimator, it is shown that higher levels of women’s participation in decision-making processes alleviate the environmental deterioration via the direct effects. With further exploration of data, the study also exposes that one of the critical reasons creating the divergence between the theoretical and empirical literature is the indirect effects via welfare channel becoming more dominant as society becomes less gender-equal. In other words, the deterioration in environmental quality remains relatively low due to destitution in less gender-equal countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

This study is based on openly available online data.

References

  1. Sanders, R., & Jenkins, L. (2022). Control, alt, delete: Patriarchal populist attacks on international women’s rights. Global Constitutionalism, 11(3), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381721000198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sundström, A., Paxton, P., Wang, Y. & Lindberg, S. (2015). Women’s political empowerment: a new global index, 1900–2012. University of Gothenburg, Varieties of Democracy Institute, Working Paper (WP) 19.

  3. Sigman, R., & Lindberg, S. I. (2017). Neopatrimonialism and democracy: an empirical investigation of Africa’s political regimes. V-Dem Working Paper, 56. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066654

  4. Machado, A. A., & C. & Leite de Resende, A. (2019). Technology, environment, and democracy: Some approaches. Revista de Investigacoes Constitucionais, 6(3), 749–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Neumayer, E. (2002). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 139–164.

  6. Esty, D. C., & Porter, M. E. (2005). National environmental performance: An empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 391–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Winslow, M. (2005). Is democracy good for the environment? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 771–783.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J., & Grigoroudis, E. (2021). Democracy and the environment: How political freedom is linked with environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 13(10), 5522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrett, S., & Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environment and Development Economics, 5, 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 935–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pellegrini, L., & Gerlagh, R. (2006). Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy: An empirical contribution to the debate. Journal of Environment & Development, 15, 332–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Halkos, G. E., & Paizanos, E. A. (2017). The channels of the effect of government expenditure on the environment: Evidence using dynamic panel data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60, 135–157.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Iwińska, K., Kampas, A., & Longhurst, K. (2019). Interactions between democracy and environmental quality: Toward a more nuanced understanding. Sustainability, 11(6), 1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nair, G., & Hofman & N.G. (2022). Middle-class women and domestic work in India and the United States: Caste, race and patriarchy. Sociological Bulletin, 71(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380229211063157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sakellari, M., & Skanavis, C. (2013). Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 12(2), 77–87.

  17. Strapko, H. N., MacIlroy, L., & Keith, S. (2016). Gender differences in environmental concern: Reevaluating gender socialization. Society and Natural Resources, 29(9), 1015–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kennedy, E. H., & Kmec, J. (2018). Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Sociology, 4(3), 229–310.

  19. Fredriksson, P., & Wang, L. (2011). Sex and environmental policy in the US House of representatives. Economic Letters, 113(3), 228–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fraune, C. (2016). The politics of speeches, votes, and deliberations: Gendered legislating and energy policy-making in Germany and the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 19, 134–141.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2008). Corruption and government. International Peacekeeping, 15(3), 328–343.

  23. Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., & Gangadharan, L. (2009). Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wängnerud, L. (2009). Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(51), 51–69.

  25. Rivas, F. M. (2013). An experiment on corruption and gender. Bulletin of Economic Research, 65(1), 10–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brollo, F., & Troiano, U. (2016). What happens when a woman wins an election? Evidence from close races in Brazil. Journal of Development Economics, 122, 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. DiRienzo, C. E., & Das, J. (2019). Women in government, environment, and corruption. Environmental Development, 30, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Goodin, R. E. (1992). Green political theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

  29. Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Schlosberg, D. (2020). Between environmental and ecological democracy: Theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1703276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thévenon, O., & Del Pero, A. S. (2015). Gender equality (F)or economic growth? Effects of reducing the gender gap in education on economic growth in OECD countries. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 117/118, 353–377. https://doi.org/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.117-118.353

  31. Profeta, P. (2020). Gender equality and public policy during COVID-19. CESifo Economic Studies, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifaa018

  32. Damania, R., Fredriksson, P. G., & List, J. A. (2003). Trade liberalization, corruption, and environmental policy formation: Theory and evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 490–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: A cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 663–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fredriksson, P., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sundstrӧm, A. (2012). Corruption and regulatory compliance: Experimental findings from South African small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 36, 1255–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernández-Sainz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018). Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque country university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eastin, J. & Prakash, A. (2013). Economic development and gender equality: Is there a gender kuznets curve? World Politics, (651), 156–184. https://www.polisci.washington.edu/research/publications/economic-development-and-gender-equality-there-gender-kuznets-curve

  38. Wang, S., Li, Z., & Zhang, H. (2021). Does female labor share reduce embodied carbon in trade? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(7), 8246–8257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11172-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Koengkan, M. & Fuinhas, J. A. (2021). Is gender inequality an essential driver in explaining environmental degradation? Some empirical answers from the CO2 emissions in European Union countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 90, 106619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106619

  40. Ergas, C., Greiner, P. T., McGee, J. A., & Clement, M. T. (2021). Does gender climate influence climate change? The multidimensionality of gender equality and its countervailing effects on the carbon intensity of well-being. Sustainability, 13, 3956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bilgili, F., Khan, M. & Awan, A. (2022). Is there a gender dimension of the environmental Kuznets curve? Evidence from Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02139-3

  42. Sundstrӧm, A., & McCright, A. M. (2014). Gender differences in environmental concern among Swedish citizens and politicians. Environmental Pollution, 23(6), 1082–1095.

  43. Gangi, F., Daniele, L. M., D'Angelo, E., Varrone, N., & Coscia, M. (2022). The impact of board gender diversity on banks’ environmental policy: the moderating role of gender inequality in national culture. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2418

  44. Alvarado, R., Ponce, P., Criollo, A., Córdova, K., & Khan, M. K. (2018). Environmental degradation and real per capita output: New evidence at the global level grouping countries by income levels, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 189. ISSN, 13–20, 0959–6526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ahmad, M., Muslija, A., & Satrovic, E. (2021). Does economic prosperity lead to environmental sustainability in developing economies? Environmental Kuznets curve theory. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 22588–22601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12276-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Verbič, M., Satrovic, E., & Muslija, A. (2021). Environmental Kuznets curve in Southeastern Europe: The role of urbanization and energy consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 57807–57817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14732-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537

  48. Kizilgol, O., & Ondes, H. (2022). Factors affecting the ecological footprint: a study on the OECD countries. Science of the Total Environment, 849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157757

  49. Paramati, S. R., Shahzad, U., & Dogan, B. (2022). The role of environmental technology for energy demand and energy efficiency: evidence from OECD countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111735

  50. Shobande, O. A., & Ogbeifun, L. (2022). Has information and communication technology improved environmental quality in the OECD? A dynamic panel analysis, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1909172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ahmed, K. (2020). Environmental policy stringency, related technological change and emissions inventory in 20 OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111209

  52. Halkos, G. E., & Paizanos, E. Α. (2013). The effect of government expenditure on the environment: An empirical investigation. Ecological Economics, 91, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Leppänen, S., Solanko, L., & Kosonen, R. (2015). The impact of climate change on regional government expenditures: Evidence from Russia. Environmental and Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9977-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Azam, W., Khan, I., & Ali, S. A. (2022). Alternative energy and natural resources in determining environmental sustainability: A look at the role of government final consumption expenditures in France. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22334-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Global Footprint Network. (2022). Global footprint network. http://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.221569947.2088424722.1620414895-1523118994.1619292785. Accessed: May 5th, 2022.

  56. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150–3182. Available for download at www.ggdc.net/pwt

  57. Carlsson, F., & Lundström, S. (2001). Political and economic freedom and the environment: the case of CO2 emissions. Working Papers in Economics, 29. https://swopec.hhs.se/gunwpe/papers/gunwpe0029.pdf

  58. The World Bank. (2022). World development indicators. Online at https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

  59. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Blomquist, J., & Westerlund, J. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters, 121, 374–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. MPRA Paper 17692. University Library of Munich, Germany.

  62. Eberhardt, M. (2012). Estimating panel time-series models with heterogeneous slopes. The Stata Journal, 12(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kapetanios, G., Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2011). Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures. Journal of Econometrics, 160, 326–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bond, S., Leblebicioglu, A., & Schiantarelli, F. (2010). Capital accumulation and growth: a new look at the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 25–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.1163

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Yunusemre Campus, Anadolu University, 26470, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Caglar Karaduman

Authors
  1. Caglar Karaduman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This declaration is not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caglar Karaduman.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This declaration is not applicable.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karaduman, C. Gender Equality and Environmental Quality Nexus: the Case of OECD Countries. Environ Model Assess 28, 893–905 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-023-09892-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-023-09892-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation