Climate Change Policies in the Transitional Economies of Europe and Eurasia: The Role of NGOs

Original paper

Abstract

This article examines ratification of the Kyoto Protocol across 26 transitional economies of Europe and Eurasia for the period of 1998–2009; the period between the Kyoto Protocol and the 2009 Copenhagen meeting. The dependent variable measures whether or not the country has ratified the Kyoto Protocol in a given year. The key variable of interest is the strength of domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs). To account for the nascent stage of the NGO sector, I measure NGO strength as a “stock” and as a “flow” variable. Using an event-history model, I examine the impact of the NGO strength while controlling for other domestic-based and international drivers of treaty ratification. All time-variant independent variables are lagged by a year. My analysis suggests that the stock of domestic NGO strength is a significant predictor of the timing of ratification. Further, EU accession pressures, ratification levels in contiguous countries, and domestic economic cycle impact the timing of ratification of the treaty.

Keywords

NGO Environmental policy European union Global climate change Transitional economies 

Résumé

Cet article est une étude de la ratification du Protocole de Kyoto à travers 26 économies transitionnelles d’Europe et d’Eurasie pour la période de 1998 à 2009, à savoir l’intervalle entre le Protocole de Kyoto et la rencontre de Copenhague en 2009. La variable dépendante mesure si un pays a ou non ratifié le Protocole de Kyoto au cours d’une année donnée. La variable d’intérêt clé est la puissance des organisations non gouvernementales locales (ONG). Afin de prendre en compte l’état naissant du secteur des ONG, je mesure la puissance de ces dernières comme une variable de « capital » et de « flux » . Me fondant sur un modèle d’historique des événements, j’examine l’impact de la puissance des ONG tout en étudiant d’autres facteurs internationaux et locaux de ratification de traité. Toutes les variables indépendantes variant dans le temps sont décalées d’une année. Mon analyse suggère que le capital de la puissance des ONG locales constitue un prédicteur significatif de la périodicité de la ratification. En outre, les pressions de l’accession à l’UE, les niveaux de ratification dans les pays voisins et le cycle économique national ont un impact sur la période de ratification du traité.

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht die Ratifizierung des Koyoto-Protokolls von 26 Reformländern in Europa und Eurasien in der Zeit von 1998-2009, dem Zeitraum zwischen dem Kyoto-Protokoll und der 2009 abgehaltenen Konferenz in Kopenhagen. Die abhängige Variable stellt fest, ob das jeweilige Land das Kyoto-Protokoll in einem bestimmten Jahr ratifiziert hat. Die zu beachtende Schlüsselvariable ist die Stärke inländischer nicht-staatlicher Organisationen. Zur Erklärung des Entwicklungsstadiums des Sektors nicht-staatlicher Organisationen messe ich die Stärke nicht-staatlicher Organisationen als eine „Bestandsgröße“und als eine Flussgröße. Mit Hilfe eines Ereigniszeitmodells untersuche ich die Auswirkung der Stärke nicht-staatlicher Organisationen unter Berücksichtigung anderer inländischer und internationaler Antriebskräfte für eine Vertragsratifizierung. Alle zeitvarianten unabhängigen Variablen sind um ein Jahr verzögert. Meine Analyse lässt darauf schließen, dass die Stärke inländischer nicht-staatlicher Organisationen einen bedeutenden Prädiktor für den Zeitpunkt der Ratifizierung darstellt. Darüber hinaus beeinflussen der Druck für einen EU-Beitritt, die Ratifizierungsstufen in Anschlussländern und die Inlandskonjunktur den Zeitpunkt der Vertragsratifizierung.

Resumen

Este documento examina la ratificación del Protocolo de Kyoto en 26 economías transicionales de Europa y Eurasia para el período de 1998-2009; el período entre el Protocolo de Kyoto y la reunión de Copenhague de 2009. La variable dependiente mide si el país ha ratificado o no el Protocolo de Kyoto en un año dado. La variable clave de interés es la fortaleza de las organizaciones no gubernamentales locales (ONG). Para explicar la etapa naciente del sector de las ONG, mido la fortaleza de las ONG como una variable de “stock” y como una variable de “flujo”. Utilizando un modelo de historial de eventos, examino el impacto de la fortaleza de las ONG controlando al mismo tiempo otros impulsores de la ratificación del tratado internacionales y con base local. Todas las variables independientes de la variante tiempo están rezagadas un año. Mi análisis sugiere que el stock de la fortaleza de las ONG locales es un pronosticador significativo de la fecha de ratificación escogida. Asimismo, las presiones de adhesión a la UE, los niveles de ratificación en países contiguos y el ciclo económico interno afectan a la fecha oportuna de ratificación del tratado.

摘要

本文回顾了1998-2009年(“京都议定书”发布至2009年哥本哈根会议期间)欧洲和欧亚地区26个经济转型国家接受“京都议定书”的情况以及决定这些国家在特定时间接受“京都议定书”的各种相互依存因素。其中,各国国内非政府组织(NGO)的力量是关键因素之一。对于处于起步阶段的非政府机构,我们使用“Stock”和“Flow”变量来评价非政府组织力量。使用事件历史模型,作者分析了非政府组织力量以及国内和国际条约控制的影响。所有时间相关的独立变量均滞后一年。分析表明,国内非政府组织力量的stock是预测其接受“京都议定书”的重要指标。此外,欧盟进入压力,相邻国家的接受程度以及国内经济周期都会影响该条约的接受。

要約

本論では1998年から2009年の間、つまり京都議定書から2009年のコペンハーゲン会議までの期間におけるヨーロッパとユーラシアの移行経済諸国26ケ国による京都議定書の批准について調査する。 従変数は、国が年間に京都議定書を批准しているかどうかを測定する。変動金利は国内の非政府組織(NGO)の強みである。またNGOセクターの初期段階を説明して、「ストック」変数および「フロー」変数としてのNGOの強みを測定する。そしてイベントヒストリー分析を用いて、条約批准の国内および国外のドライバーのために制御する間に、NGOの強みのストックを調査する。すべての時間における異なる独立変数は1年遅れている。分析から、国内NGOの強みであるストックは批准のタイミングに重要な予測となることが明らかになった。さらにEU加入への圧力、隣接国および国内の経済循環における批准レベルは条約の批准のタイミングに影響を与えるといえる。

ملخص

هذا البحث يفحص التصديق على بروتوكول كيوتوعبر26 أنظمة إقتصادية إنتقالية في أوروبا وأوروبا و أسيا (Eurasia) للفترة من 1998- 2009 ; الفترة بين بروتوكول كيوتو وإجتماع كوبنهاجن عام 2009. المتغيرات التابعة تقيس إذا كانت البلد صدقت على بروتوكول كيوتو أم لا في السنة المعينة. المتغير الرئيسي ذو الإهتمام هو قوة المنظمات الغير حكومية المحلية (NGOs). لحساب المرحلة الناشئة لقطاع المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO)، أقيس قوة المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) “كمخزون” و “كتدفق” متغير. بإستخدام نموذج حدث تاريخي، أنا أفحص تأثير قوة المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) أثناء السيطرة على الذين يقودون التصديق المحليين و الدوليين الآخرين على المعاهدات. المختلف في جميع الأوقات من المتغيرين المستقلين متأخر بعام. تحليلي يقترح أن المخزون من قوة المنظمات الغير حكومية المحلية يمثل المتوقع الكبيرعلى توقيت التصديق. علاوة على ذلك، إضافة ضغوط الإتحاد الأوروبي(EU)، مستويات التصديق في البلدان القريبة، و الدورة الإقتصادية المحلية يؤثرعلى توقيت التصديق على المعاهدة.

References

  1. Andonova, L. B. (2004). Transnational politics of the environment: The European Union and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andonova, L. B. (2005). The Europeanization of Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. In The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. In Frank Schimmelfennig & Ulrich Dedelmeier, (Eds.) (pp. 135–156). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arts, B. (1998). The political influence of global NGOs: Case studies on the climate change and biodiversity conventions. Utrecht: International Books.Google Scholar
  4. Badescu, G., & Sum, P. E. (2004). Civil society development and democratic values in Romania and Moldova. East European Politics and Societies, 18(2), 316–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, S. (2002). Environmental Protection Capacity in Post-Communist Bulgaria. In H. Weidner & M. Jänicke (Eds.), Capacity building in national environmental policy: A comparative study of 17 countries (pp. 97–122). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, S., & Jehlička, P. (Eds.). (1998). Dilemmas of transition: the environment, democracy and economic reform in east central Europe. New York: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, R. G. (2005). Further up the learning curve: NGOs from transition to Brussels. In J. Carmin & S. D. VanDeveer (Eds.), EU Enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in central and Eastern Europe (pp. 194–215). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Betsill, M. B., & Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, S. M. (2005). Interdependent and domestic foundations of policy change: The diffusion of pension privatization around the world. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caddy, J. (1997). Harmonization and asymmetry: environmental policy co-ordination between the European Union and Central Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carmin, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2005). Enlarging EU environments: Central and Eastern Europe from transition to accession. In J. Carmin & S. D. VanDeveer (Eds.), EU Enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in central and Eastern Europe (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Colton, T. (1995). Moscow: Governing the socialist metropolis. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dessai, S., & Schipper, E. L. (2002). The Marrakech accords to the Kyoto Protocol: Analysis and future prospects. Global Environmental Change, 13(2), 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimas, S. (2008). Climate action: Energy for a changing world. Speech given at European Commission, Brussels, January 23rd, 2008. Accessed on March 18th, 2008 from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/37&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
  16. Dolšak, N. (2009). Climate change policy implementation: A cross-sectional analysis. Review of Policy Research, 26(5), 551–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earnest, D. (2006). Neither citizen nor stranger: Why states enfranchise resident aliens. World Politics, 58(2), 242–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagan, A. (1994). Environment and transition in the Czech Republic. Environmental Politics, 3(3), 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagan, A. (2002). The Czech Republic. In H. Weidner & M. Jänicke (Eds.), Capacity building in national environmental policy: A comparative study of 17 countries (pp. 177–200). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fagan, A., & Jehlička, P. (1998). Sustainable development in the Czech Republic: A doomed process? Environmental Politics, 7(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garvey, T. (2002). EU enlargement: Is it sustainable? In S. Crisen & J. Carmin (Eds.), EU enlargement and environmental quality: Central and Eastern Europe and beyond (pp. 53–62). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.Google Scholar
  22. Gerring, J., Bond, P. J., Barndt, W. T., & Moreno, C. (2005). Democracy and economic growth: A historical perspective. World Politics, 57(3), 323–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenhill, B., Mosley, L., & Prakash, A. (2009). Trade and labor rights: A panel study, 1986–2002. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grindle, M. S. (1997). Getting good government: Capacity building in the public sector of developing countries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grossback, L., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32(5), 521–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hallstrom, L. K. (2005). Eurocratising enlargement? EU elites and NGO participation in European environmental policy. In J. Carmin & S. D. VanDeveer (Eds.), EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in central and Eastern Europe (pp. 175–193). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hamilton, J. (1995). Pollution as news: Media and stock market reactions to the toxic release inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(1), 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, K., & Sundstrom, L. M. (2007). The comparative politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hicks, B. (2005). Setting agendas and shaping activism. EU influence on central and Eastern European environmental movements. In J. Carmin & S. D. VanDeveer (Eds.), EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in central and Eastern Europe (pp. 216–236). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Howard, M. M. (2002). The weakness of postcommunist civil society. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Switzerland. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf. Accessed on August 20, 2007.
  32. Jancar-Webster, B. (1993). Environmental action in Eastern Europe: Responses to crisis. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  33. Jancar-Webster, B. (1998). Environmental movement and social change in the transition countries. Environmental Politics, 7(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jordan, A., & Liefferink, D. (2004a). The Europeanization of national environmental policy. In A. Jordan & D. Liefferink (Eds.), Environmental policy in Europe: The Europeanization of national environmental policy (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jordan, A., & Liefferink, D. (2004b). Europeanization and convergence: Comparative conclusions. In A. Jordan & D. Liefferink (Eds.), Environmental policy in Europe: The Europeanization of national environmental policy (pp. 224–251). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karch, A. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kopstein, J., & Reilly, D. A. (2000). Geographic diffusion and the transformation of the postcommunist world. World Politics, 53(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Long, S. J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Lovell, D. W. (2001). Trust and the politics of postcommunism. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60, 126–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mondak, J. J., & Gearing, A. F. (1998). Civic engagement in a post communist state. Political Psychology, 19(3), 615–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newell, P. (2000). Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD. Centre for Co-operation with Non-Members. (1999). Environment in the transition to a market economy: Progress in central and Eastern Europe and the new independent states. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  45. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P., Stonich, S., & Weber, E. (Eds.). (2002). The drama of the commons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  47. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006). Racing to the Bottom? Globalization, environmental governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Investing up: FDI and the cross-national diffusion of ISO 14001. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose, R., Mishler, W., & Haerpfer, C. (1997). Social capital in civic and stressful societies. Studies in Comparative International Development, 32(3), 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanwal, M. (2007). Evolution of global environmental governance and the United Nations. Global Environmental Politics, 7(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Singleton, F. (1987). Environmental problems in the Soviet Union & Eastern Europe. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Slocock, B. (1996). The paradoxes of environmental policy in Eastern Europe: The dynamics of policy-making in the Czech Republic. Environmental Politics, 5(3), 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tickle, A., & Welsh, I. (1998). Environment and society in Eastern Europe. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
  55. Tomz, M., Goldstein, J. L., & Rivers, D. (2007). Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? Comment. American Economic Review, 97(5), 2005–2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vitousek, P. M. (1997). Technical report: Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle, sources and consequences. Ecological Applications, 7, 737–750.Google Scholar
  57. Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wapner, P. (1995). Politics without borders: Environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics, 47, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Watson, R. T. (2003). Climate change: The political situation. Science, 302, 1925–1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weidner, H., & Jänicke, M. ( 2002). Capacity building in national environmental policy: A comparative study of 17 countries. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine and Environmental AffairsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Arts and SciencesUniversity of Washington BothellSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations