The role of democracy in promoting environmental performance is an important and enduring issue. Former U.S. President Al Gore declared, “I have come to believe that an essential prerequisite for saving the environment is the spread of democratic governments to more nations of the world.” Was President Gore correct? The results of this thesis support my hypothesis that higher levels of democracy exhibit better environmental performance than autocracies.
According to previous scholars, the relationship between democracy and environmental performance is inconclusive. Some believe that an increase in democracy produces more effective environmental policies. In opposition, others claim that authoritarian environmentalism is more successful in improving environmental outcomes. This unresolved relationship motivated me to contribute to the literature using new and unique data. Previous studies have used single, isolated factors to evaluate the association between the two variables. However, I utilize data on environmental performance and levels of democracy with 111 indicators to determine the relationship between the democratic level and the environmental behavior of a country.
I collected two sets of cross-sectional data to measure environmental performance and democracy. The Varieties of Democracy (V-DEM) Liberal Democracy Index quantifies the liberal and electoral aspects of democracy based on 71 indicators over the year 2021. The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) uses 40 indicators to rank countries’ environmental performance based on mitigating climate change, protecting ecosystem vitality, and fostering environmental health during the same year. Additionally, I accounted for five control variables in order to isolate the effect of democracy on environmental outcomes. Recognizing that the economy, population, and natural environment impact a nation’s ability to create environmental policy, I control for each country’s GDP per capita, population, trade openness, urbanization, and land area using data from the World Bank.
Top 10, Middle 10, and Bottom 10 Countries of LDI 2021: This figure illustrates the bottom ten, middle ten, and top ten countries ranked on the LDI index. Much of Western Europe and North America lead in the liberal democracy index, while the Middle East and North African regions represent the lower part of the rankings.
Top 10, Middle 10, and Bottom 10 Countries of EPI 2021: This figure illustrates the bottom ten, middle ten, and top ten countries ranked on the EPI index. The Global West constitutes the upper portion of the index, and Southern Asia and the Asia-Pacific regions represent much of the bottom section.
I evaluated the relationship between liberal democracy and environmental performance for 145 nations worldwide, removing 35 countries because they lacked recorded measurements of at least one of the variables assessed in this research. To further examine the exact qualities of democracy that drive the relationship between government structures and environmental outcomes, I selected seven indicators of the LDI for another regression analysis. The indicators are as follows: equal protection, participatory principle, civil society participation, freedom of expression, clean elections, legislative constraints on the executive, and judicial constraints on the executive.
Democracy and Environmental Performance of 145 Countries: Before evaluating a regression analysis of the LDI and EPI, I interpreted a basic scatter plot of the independent and dependent variables for each of the 145 countries. With the LDI on the x-axis and the EPI on the y-axis, there appears to be a positive relationship between the two variables.
By conducting two regression analyses, I arrived at five conclusions regarding the relationship between democracy and environmental performance. First, I find that growth in democracy leads to higher environmental performance in countries worldwide. Second, my analysis shows that GDP per capita and trade openness positively correlate with environmental performance. Moreover, population has a negative relationship with environmental performance. Fourth, I discover that clean elections are one of the most significant democratic indicators positively associated with environmental outcomes. Finally, I conclude that equal protection is also one of the most consequential democratic indicators positively relating to environmental outcomes.
Ultimately, my study contributes a clear message to the literature: Democracies demonstrate better environmental outcomes than non-democracies. It is common to assume that technology, markets, and economic development most significantly impact environmental performance. However, it is now clear that democracy is another key player in environmental outcomes. Investing in democracies and good faith negotiations can increase environmental performance for each nation worldwide. Therefore, with an increased spread of democracy and civil liberties around the globe, policymakers will be better able to address environmental issues that challenge our planet now and in the future.
Sophia Osterberg is a senior studying Environmental Management with minors in Law and Public Policy and Spanish. Since joining the O’Neill School and becoming a student in the Undergraduate Honors Program, Sophia has been fascinated by the global diversity of policymaking and grew a passion for climate change responses. Her thesis combines both of her interests as she attempts to answer the question, “How does the level of democracy in a nation’s government contribute to its environmental performance?” After graduating from Indiana University in the spring of 2023, Sophia will continue her enthusiasm for environmental policy by working in Washington, D.C. as a government consultant in the energy and environment sector.
Leave a Reply