Abstract
This study examines the complex relationship between decentralization, national context and environment policy performance with the cross-sectional data from 118 countries. Decentralization is decomposed into three dimensions: political, fiscal and administrative. Both multiple regression analysis and fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis are adopted. Results show that: (1) political, fiscal and administrative decentralization differ in their impacts on environmental policy performance. (2) There are multiple pathways, constituted by specific configurations of decentralization and context conditions, to high (or low) environmental policy performance. (3) High environmental policy performance occurs most often when a country is fiscally and administratively decentralized and its context is favorable, i.e. advanced economy, good governance and stringent environmental regulations. In this situation, political decentralization seems to be irrelevant to the outcome. (4) Low environmental policy performance occurs most often when a country, without the favorable context mentioned above, become fiscally centralized, regardless of whether political and administrative decentralization is present or not. This study suggests policy makers should keep in mind the contextual fit of decentralization and adopt a configurational thinking in environmental governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altunbaş Y, Thornton J (2011) Fiscal decentralization and governance. Public Finance Review 40:66–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142111424276
Bardhan PK, Mookherjee D (2006) Decentralization and local governance in developing countries. MIT Press, Cambridge
Brennan G, Buchanan JM (2006) The power to tax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Charron N (2009) Government quality and vertical power-sharing in fractionalized states. Publius J Federalism 39:585–605. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjp015
Dasgupta S, De Cian E (2016) Institutions and the Environment: Existing Evidence and Future Directions. FEEM Working Paper No. 41.2016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2800948
Denk T, Lehtinen S (2013) Contextual analyses with QCA-methods. Qual Quant 48:3475–3487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9968-4
Emerson JW, Hsu A, Levy MA, de Sherbinin A, Mara V, Esty DC, Jaiteh M (2012) Environmental performance index and pilot trend environmental performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven
Faguet J-P (2014) Decentralization and governance. World Dev 53:2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002
Franzese RJ (2007) In: Boix C, Stokes SC (eds) Multicausality, context-conditionality, and endogeneity. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Oxford, pp 27–72
Goel RK, Mazhar U, Nelson MA, Ram R (2017) Different forms of decentralization and their impact on government performance: micro-level evidence from 113 countries. Econ Model 62:171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.12.010
Grofman B, Schneider CQ (2008) An introduction to crisp set QCA, with a comparison to binary logistic regression. Polit Res Quart 62:662–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909338464
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
Hadiz VR (2004) Decentralization and democracy in Indonesia: a critique of neo-institutionalist perspectives. Dev Chang 35:697–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00376.x
IBRD (1992) World development report 1992: development and the environment. Oxford University Press, New York
Ivanyna M, Shah A (2014) How close is your government to its people? Worldwide indicators on localization and decentralization. Economics-KIEL 8:1–63. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2014-3
Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2010) The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues
Kellenberg DK (2009) An empirical investigation of the pollution haven effect with strategic environment and trade policy. J Int Econ 78:242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2009.04.004
Kim D-R, Yoon J-H (2017) Decentralization, government capacity, and environmental policy performance: A cross-national analysis. Int J Public Admin 48:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1318917
Lessmann C, Markwardt G (2010) One size fits all? Decentralization, corruption, and the monitoring of bureaucrats. World Dev 38:631–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.003
Levinson A (2003) Environmental regulatory competition: a status report and some new evidence. Natl Tax J 56:91–106. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2003.1.06
Long X, Oh K, Cheng G (2013) Are stronger environmental regulations effective in practice? The case of China’s accession to the WTO. J Clean Prod 39:161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.005
Manderson E, Kneller R (2011) Environmental regulations, outward FDI and heterogeneous firms: are countries used as pollution havens? Environ Resour Econ 51:317–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9500-z
Misangyi VF, Greckhamer T, Furnari S, Fiss PC, Crilly D, Aguilera R (2016) Embracing causal complexity: the emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. J Manag 43:255–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679252
Montinola G, Qian Y, Weingast BR (1995) Federalism, Chinese style: the political basis for economic success in China. World Politics 48:50–81. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1995.0003
Niskanen WA (1971) Bureaucracy and representative government. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway
Oates WE (1972) Fiscal Federalism. Harcourt, New York
Ogawa H, Wildasin DE (2009) Think locally, act locally: spillovers, spillbacks, and efficient decentralized policymaking. Am Econ Rev 99:1206–1217. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.4.1206
Peltzman S, Tideman TN (1972) Local versus national pollution control: note. Am Econ Rev 60:959–963. https://doi.org/10.2307/1815215
Prud'homme R (1995) On the dangers of decentralization. World Bank Res Obs 10:201–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.2.201
Ragin CC (2008) Redesigning social inquiry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Schneider A (2003) Decentralization: conceptualization and measurement. Stud Comp Int Dev 38:32–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686198
Schneider MR, Eggert A (2014) Embracing complex causality with the QCA method: an invitation. J Bus Mark Manag 7:312–328
Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2012) Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sepulveda CF, Martinez-Vazquez J (2011) The consequences of fiscal decentralization on poverty and income equality. Environ Plann C 29:321–343. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1033r
Sigman H (2013) Decentralization and environmental quality: an international analysis of water pollution levels and variation. Land Econ 90:114–130. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.1.114
Smith JF (1998) Does decentralization matter in environmental management? Environ Manag 22:263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900102
Smoke P (2015) Rethinking decentralization: assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Adm Dev 35:97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703
Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24:1151–1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00032-0
Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64:416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
Treisman D (2002) Decentralization and the quality of government. In: httpwww.sscnet.ucla.edupoliscifacultytreismanPapersDecandGovt.pdf. Accessed 17 Jul 2018
Tullock G (1965) The politics of bureaucracy. Public Affairs Press, Washington
Umemiya C, Rametsteiner E, Kraxner F (2010) Quantifying the impacts of the quality of governance on deforestation. Environ Sci Pol 13:695–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.07.002
Vis B (2012) The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses. Sociol Methods Res 41:168–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124112442142
Vogel D (2009) Trading Up. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Welzel C, Inglehart R (2008) The role of ordinary people in democratization. J Democr 19:126–140. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2008.0009
Woods ND (2006) Interstate competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis*. Soc Sci Q 87:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2006.00375.x
Woodside AG (2013) Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J Bus Res 66:463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021
Zhang X (2006) Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: implications for growth and inequality. J Comp Econ 34:713–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2006.08.006
Funding
This work was supported by China National Social Science Foundation [No. 18CZZ023].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Responsible editor: Nicholas Apergis
Appendix A. The fuzzy set scores for all countries in the sample
Appendix A. The fuzzy set scores for all countries in the sample
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mao, Y. Decentralization, national context and environmental policy performance: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25, 28471–28488 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2846-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2846-9