The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO₂ Emissions

Escher, Romy; Walter-Rogg, Melanie Article — Published Version The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO₂ Emissions Politische Vierteljahresschrift Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Escher, Romy; Walter-Rogg, Melanie (2023) : The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO₂ Emissions, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, ISSN 1862-2860, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, Vol. 64, Iss. 4, pp. 715-740, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00458-2 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/307477 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ CRITICAL PAPER https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-023-00458-2 Politische Vierteljahresschrift (2023) 64:715–740 The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO2Emissions Romy Escher · Melanie Walter-Rogg Received: 21 March 2022 / Revised: 10 February 2023 / Accepted: 15 February 2023 / Published online: 12 April 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Democratic institutions that coordinate diffuse interests might be beneficial for climate protection. Because the implementation of democratic institutions varies among democracies as well as among autocracies, this study examines whether institutional aspects of different models of democracy affect CO2emissions in democracies and autocracies. Similar studies have assumed uniform effects of democratic aspects in regimes of both types. The extent of the dependence of autocratic leaders on the support of the ruling party, the military, and/or a hereditary council might make them less responsive to incentives generated by democratic institutions to reduce CO2emissions. This article, therefore, examines data on CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2020 in 66 democracies and 69 autocracies separately and analyses whether nondemocratic institutions limit the effects of democratic institutions. As democratic institutions might affect climate outcomes only in the long term, we examine cross-national variation in the long-term development of CO2emissions and short-term changes in CO2emissions within countries. In democracies, civil society participation and social equality contribute to a decrease in the long-term development of CO2emissions. In autocracies, local and regional democracy contributes to lower CO2emissions in the long term, and social equality decreases annual changes in CO2emissions. Military influence limits these effects. In contrast, the dependence of the executive on a ruling party strengthens the negative effect of social equality on annual changes in CO2emissions. Romy Escher · Melanie Walter-Rogg Department for Political Science Research Methods, Institute of Political Science, University of Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany E-Mail: [email protected] Melanie Walter-Rogg E-Mail: [email protected] K 716 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg Keywords Climate policy · Democracy · Autocracy · Institutions · Climate change · Social equality · Civil society participation Auswirkungen demokratischer und nichtdemokratischer Institutionen auf CO2-Emissionen Zusammenfassung Demokratische Institutionen, die unterschiedliche Interessen koordinieren, könnten für den Klimaschutz von Vorteil sein. Da die Implementierung demokratischer Institutionen sowohl zwischen Demokratien als auch zwischen Autokratien variiert, wird in dieser Studie untersucht, ob institutionelle Aspekte verschiedener Demokratiemodelle die CO2-Emissionen in Demokratien und Autokratien beeinflussen. Ähnliche Studien gehen von einheitlichen Auswirkungen demokratischer Aspekte in beiden Regimetypen aus. Das Ausmaß der Abhängigkeit autokratischer Führer von der Unterstützung durch die Regierungspartei, das Militär und/oder einen Erbschaftsrat könnte dazu führen, dass sie weniger auf Anreize reagieren, die durch demokratische Institutionen zur Reduzierung der CO2-Emissionen geschaffen werden. In diesem Artikel werden daher Daten zu den CO2-Emissionen von 1990 bis 2020 in 66 Demokratien und 69 Autokratien getrennt untersucht und analysiert, ob nichtdemokratische Institutionen die Auswirkungen demokratischer Institutionen begrenzen. Da sich demokratische Institutionen möglicherweise nur langfristig auf das Klima auswirken, untersuchen wir länderübergreifende Unterschiede in der langfristigen Entwicklung der CO2-Emissionen und kurzfristige Veränderungen der CO2-Emissionen innerhalb der Länder. In Demokratien tragen die Beteiligung der Zivilgesellschaft und die soziale Gleichheit zu einem Rückgang der langfristigen Entwicklung der CO2-Emissionen bei. In Autokratien trägt die lokale und regionale Demokratie langfristig zu niedrigeren CO2-Emissionen bei, und soziale Gleichheit verringert die jährlichen Veränderungen der CO2-Emissionen. Der militärische Einfluss begrenzt diese Effekte. Dagegen verstärkt die Abhängigkeit der Exekutive von einer Regierungspartei den negativen Effekt der sozialen Gleichheit auf die jährlichen Veränderungen der CO2-Emissionen. Schlüsselwörter Klimapolitik · Demokratie · Autokratie · Institutionen · Klimawandel · Soziale Gleichheit · Zivilgesellschaft 1 Introduction This article examines whether specific democratic institutions affect CO2emissions in democracies and autocracies and whether nondemocratic institutions limit their effects in autocracies. Global problems such as climate change renew questions on the consequences of domestic political institutions for policy performance. The findings of quantitative research on the consequences of different regime types or the level of democratic quality for climate outcomes are ambiguous (e.g., Bättig and Bernauer 2009;Wurster2013; Clulow 2019). Scholars have concluded that regime type as a dichotomous construct cannot explain differences in CO2emissions (Christoff and Eckersely 2011;Wurster2013). Climate outcomes vary among both democracies K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 717 and autocracies over time. There have been two approaches in quantitative research seeking to improve our understanding of the causal mechanism linking democracy to climate outcomes. First, studies have examined whether the effect of democratic quality on climate outcomes is conditional on contextual conditions (e.g., electoral rules, corruption) that either support or undermine climate protection (e.g., Mayer 2017; Povitkina 2018; Clulow 2019). Second, quantitative research on democratic quality and climate outcomes has mainly applied summary measures of liberal democratic quality. However, in the theoretical debate, scholars refer to multiple conceptualisations of democracy (electoral, liberal, deliberative, participatory, and egalitarian) and emphasise different institutional aspects (electoral accountability, political rights, checks and balances, civil rights, quality of deliberation, direct democracy, civil society participation, local and regional democracy, and social equality) of these conceptualisations as crucial for climate protection. Accordingly, recent research has examined the importance of specific democratic institutions in explaining variation in climate outcomes (Escher and Walter-Rogg 2018;vonStein2020). Climate change mitigation is a collective action problem. As climate protection is associated with considerable short-term socioeconomic costs, it requires public awareness and broad societal support to incentivise government action. Thus, we expect that democratic institutions that coordinate diffuse interests might be beneficial for climate protection. Political rights enable citizens to inform themselves about global environmental change and the public to mobilise in support of climate protection. Greater quality of deliberation can foster public support of common interests. Social equality—i.e., equal access to political power independent from class, religion, culture, or socioeconomic resources—can contribute via the broad political representation of social groups to the consideration of diffuse interests in political debates. Finally, greater participation of civil society as well as local and regional democracy might lead to the representation of diffuse interests and, by fostering greater citizen identification with policy measures, to greater public support for climate protection. The theoretical literature also offers divergent predictions regarding the direction of the impact of these democratic institutions on climate outcomes. Political rights, participation in civil society, and local and regional democracy also enable opponents of climate protection to influence public opinion and undermine climate policy (Bernauer and Koubi 2009; Kim and Yoon 2018;vonStein2020). Social equality might contribute via greater consumption and energy use to CO2 emissions (Cushing et al. 2015). Empirical research has found no clear support for the hypotheses that contested elections or institutional constraints either support or undermine climate protection (Fredriksson and Neumayer 2013;Wurster2013;von Stein 2020). Böhmelt et al. (2016) and Escher and Walter-Rogg (2018) found that democratic inclusiveness and political rights contribute to the public commitment to climate action but have no impact on CO2emissions. Following von Stein (2020), the effect of civil liberties on greenhouse gas emissions is dependent on the relative importance of manufacturing in the domestic economy. Empirical research has arrived at mixed results on the impact of inequality on CO2emissions (Cushing et al. 2015). Finally, Selseng et al. (2022) observed no effect of electoral, liberal, delibK 718 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg erative, participatory, or egalitarian democratic quality on climate outcomes over time. In accordance with the goals of this special issue, this article aims to contribute to our understanding of the democracy–sustainability nexus. To improve our understanding of the causal mechanisms that link individual democratic institutions to CO2emissions, this article makes two contributions that go beyond the present literature. First, this article examines the effects of relevant institutional aspects of different models of democracy separately and simultaneously to ascertain their relative importance. In accordance with Selseng et al. (2022), this article considers institutional aspects of multiple conceptualisations of democracy in the analysis of climate outcomes. However, these authors’ summary measures of institutional aspects of several models of democracy might conceal the effects of individual institutions. As explained above, the theoretical debate offers competing hypotheses regarding the effects of individual institutional aspects. To account for the different effects of these institutional variables, we study each institution separately. To consider all democracy understandings that are applied in the literature on the climate consequences of democracy, this study also partly examines the effects of political outcomes on CO2emissions. In contrast to procedural conceptualisations, the egalitarian understanding of democracy considers with social equality the equal distribution of socioeconomic resources within society. Second, studies on specific democratic institutions and climate outcomes have neglected the influence of nondemocratic institutions in autocracies. The implementation of democratic institutions varies among democracies as well as among autocracies (Lührmann et al. 2018). Democracies vary little with regard to aspects of electoral democracy (e.g., electoral accountability; see Escher and Walter-Rogg 2020). In contrast, they differ considerably regarding equal access to the political system and local and regional democracy (Lührmann et al. 2018). Autocracies implement electoral accountability and nonelectoral democracy aspects to varying extents (Lührmann et al. 2018). Therefore, it is important to study the climate consequences of specific democratic institutions in democracies and autocracies. Many quantitative studies have examined a pooled sample of democracies and nondemocracies and assumed that democratic aspects had a uniform effect on climate outcomes across both types of regimes. Our argument is that while democratic institutions should affect climate outcomes in regimes of both types, their effect might vary between democracies and autocracies. Several studies have examined differences in CO2emissions among subtypes of autocracies (e.g., Wurster 2013;Wardetal. 2014). Autocracies of different subtypes—e.g., one-party regimes, military regimes, and monarchies—are distinguished based on the institutions and persons that can remove the chief executive (Cheibub et al. 2010) or keep political authorities in power (Hadenius et al. 2017; Hadenius and Teorell 2007). We argue that the extent of the dependence of the chief executive on hereditary succession, the military, and/or a single party can be regarded as capturing nondemocratic veto points in the political decision-making process. This dependency makes autocratic leaders less responsive to possible incentives generated by democratic institutions to reduce emissions and thereby limits the effects of these institutions in reducing CO2emissions. K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 719 To address this, we first examine the effects of democratic institutions on CO2 emissions separately for democracies and autocracies. Second, this article adds to research on whether the climate consequences of aspects of democracy are conditional on other variables and examines possible moderation effects of the extent of the dependence of the chief executive on hereditary succession, the military, and/or a single party in autocracies. We expect that the degree of party influence under one-party rule should limit the effects of democratic institutions on CO2emissions to the smallest extent. As political leaders dependent on one-party rule often use elections to legitimise their regimes, they should accept more democratic rights and should be more responsive to democratic incentives than their counterparts who rely on hereditary councils or the military. Case studies suggest that the acceptance of civil society and environmental movements and the influence of these groups on climate policy output and outcomes vary by autocratic regime type, with oneparty governments being more open to democratic rights and more responsive to influences from civil society (e.g., Simpson and Smits 2018,2022). Quantitative research on autocratic regime subtypes and climate outcomes has relied on dichotomous indicators of subtypes of autocracies. We apply indicators that capture the extent of dependence of the chief executive on a ruling party, hereditary succession, or the military, as the importance of the influence of these institutions varies within subtypes of autocracies (Teorell and Lindberg 2019). To answer our research question, we tested the effects of individual democratic and nondemocratic institutions on changes in CO2emissions separately for democracies and autocracies by using available data from 1990 to 2020. To consider that climate outcomes might affect democracy (Fuchs et al. in this issue), we examined changes in CO2emissions, which vary over time and across countries. Previous research indicates that quality of democracy affects between-variation and withinvariation differently (e.g., Clulow 2019). Thus, we examined both between-variation and within-variation using cross-sectional regression and time-series cross-sectional regression analysis. Because institutions that support diffuse interests might decrease CO2emissions only in the long term, we specifically examined cross-national variation in the long-term development of CO2emissions as well as short-term variation over time in CO2emissions within countries. Our findings support that social equality, citizen participation, and local and regional democracy affect climate outcomes. Nondemocratic institutions in autocracies moderate these effects. Finally, democratic institutions affect between-variation in the long-term development of CO2emissions and short-term within-country variation in CO2emissions differently. In the section below, we formulate hypotheses for the empirical analysis. The measurement of the dependent and independent variables is then explained, followed by the regression analyses to explore our hypotheses. Finally, we present our conclusions and implications for future research. 2 Hypotheses This section first argues that among the institutions with possible effects on the outcome of interest, democratic institutions that coordinate diffuse interests might K 720 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg have the greatest potential to contribute to lower CO2emissions, and their influence on climate outcomes should be studied separately. Second, in autocracies, the degrees of influence of the ruling party, hereditary council, and/or military on the executive must be taken into account, as they should limit the negative effects of democratic institutions on CO2emissions to varying extents. 2.1 Democratic Institutions and CO2Emissions Green political theorists differ regarding the models of democracy that they apply to examine the climate effects of democracy. With regard to electoral democracy, the importance of contested elections and political rights for climate outcomes is analysed. Liberal perspectives emphasise civil rights as well as checks and balances. From the perspective of an egalitarian model of democracy, the relevance of social equality among social groups is stressed. Finally, theorists of deliberative and participatory democracy focus on quality of deliberation, direct democracy, participation of civil society, and democracy at the local and regional levels of the political system. Climate protection imposes considerable social and economic costs in the short term, so individuals and societies might not be able to coordinate to act on the diffuse interest in engaging in climate protection. Climate change mitigation, therefore, depends on public awareness of global environmental change and support for climate protection. Hamilton (2010) argues that to solve the climate crisis, democracy must be changed so that it considers long-term citizen interests over the shortterm interests of political and economic elites. Simpson and Smits (2022) emphasise that in autocracies, climate protection depends on public support and the participation of civil society. Our argument is that among the abovementioned institutional aspects, political rights, quality of deliberation, participation of civil society, local and regional democracy, and social equality in particular might contribute to climate change mitigation in democracies and autocracies. The underlying assumption is that these institutions help coordinate diffuse interests in the political decisionmaking process. Political rights, i.e., the freedom of expression and association, of the press and of participation in autonomous civil society (Merkel 2004,p.39), are an important precondition for the coordination of diffuse interests in the political decision-making process. Freedom of media first makes public awareness of global environmental change possible (Winslow 2005). Freedom of expression and association and an independent civil society enable the formation of environmental interest groups (ENGOs) and foster the building of public pressure on climate policy (Bernauer et al. 2013; Fredriksson and Neumayer 2013). According to the theory of deliberative democracy, rational discursive processes make it possible for citizens and political decision-makers to consider long-term, generalised, diffuse interests and the complexity of global environmental change (Dryzek 1992; Eckersley 1995; Arias-Maldonado 2007). Deliberation can contribute to support for climate protection, as it transforms self-interest into generalised attitudes (Dryzek 1987; Miller 1992). Climate policy measures depend on public support and citizen identification with the policies (Leggewie and Welzer 2008). Civil society participation ensures the representation of more policy preferences in the political decision-making process and contributes to identifying, raising awareness of, and solving environmental K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 721 problems and increasing support for climate policies (Winslow 2005; Carbonell and Allison 2015;Böhmeltetal.2016). Local and regional democracy offers citizens and interest groups additional possibilities to inform themselves of the impacts of climate change and to support climate protection efforts via participation and deliberation (Eckersley 1995;LarsonandSoto2008; Burnell 2012). Moreover, democracy at subnational levels might improve climate change mitigation, as local conditions can be taken into account (Ward 1996). Social equality might also make it more likely that diffuse interests are considered in the political decision-making process (Böhmelt et al. 2016). Social equality leads to better representation of social groups in the political system (Cushing et al. 2015). Women and the poor are often more vulnerable to the consequences of global environmental change (e.g., Cushing et al. 2015; UNEP 2016). Women also hold more environmentally friendly attitudes and are more aware of environmental risks (e.g., Fredriksson and Wang 2011; McCright and Dunlap 2011). The theoretical debate offers competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these institutional aspects. Political rights and participation in civil society also enable opponents of climate protection to influence public opinion and undermine climate policy (Bernauer and Koubi 2009;vonStein2020). Local and regional democracy implies more possibilities for special interest groups to undermine climate policies (Kim and Yoon 2018). However, public support for climate change mitigation also makes it harder for special interest groups that bear costs from climate protection to oppose emission reduction (Böhmelt et al. 2016, p. 1257). Empirical research has arrived at mixed results on the impact of political rights (Escher and Walter-Rogg 2018,vonStein2020) and inequality on climate outcomes (Cushing et al. 2015). To account for the possible different effects of these institutional variables, we studied each institution separately. Moreover, institutions that support diffuse interests might decrease CO2emissions only in the long term. Only then will democratic institutions lead to an informed and critical society and the formation of ENGOs (Fredriksson and Neumayer 2013). It takes time for governments to deal with long-term policy goals, such as climate protection. We expect no clear impacts of further institutional aspects discussed in the democracy/environment literature in reducing CO2emissions. Democratically elected governments are expected to provide more environmental public goods to stay in power than autocratic leaders are (Congleton 1992; Bueno De Mesquita et al. 2003; Bernauer and Koubi 2009). However, voters within a nation-state might reject the socioeconomic costs of climate change mitigation (Shearman and Smith 2007;Held and Hervey 2011). Moreover, the effect of contested elections depends on the electoral success of supporters or opponents of climate protection. While public referenda, as contested elections, can make governments more responsive to citizen interests, they might hinder the adoption and implementation of long-term policies to address climate change (Stadelmann-Steffen 2011). While checks and balances ensure that more policy preferences are considered in the political decisionmaking process (Held and Hervey 2011; Burnell 2012;Wurster2013), under such systems, a single veto player may block measures to reduce CO2emissions (e.g., Beeson 2010; Gilley 2012;VonStein2020). Empirical research finds no clear effect K 722 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg Table 1 Hypotheses about the effect of democratic institutions on CO2emissions Model of democracy Aspect of democracy Hypothesis Effect on CO2emissions Electoral democracy Electoral accountability HDem1 / Political rights HDem2 – Liberal democracy Horizontal accountability HDem3 / Civil rights HDem4 / Deliberative democracy Quality of deliberation HDem5 – Participatory democracy Direct democracy HDem6 / Civil society participation HDem7 – Local and regional democracy HDem8 – Egalitarian democracy Social equality HDem9 – A dash (–) denotes a negative effect on CO2emissions, and a slash (/) denotes no clear effect on CO2 emissions (Fredriksson and Neumayer 2013;Wurster2013;Garmann2014). Civil rights, i.e., equality before the law and individual liberties such as property rights and freedom of movement and religion, might foster self-interest over climate protection (Hardin 1968; Ophuls 1977). Simultaneously, the rule of law, depending on the stringency of climate policies, might support the implementation of climate measures (Winslow 2005). Table 1presents our hypotheses. 2.2 Nondemocratic Institutions and CO2Emissions Case studies indicate that autocratic leaders can be responsive to the influences of substate actors, bureaucrats, and nonstate actors (Ducket and Wang 2017). There should, however, be no uniform effect of democratic institutions on climate outcomes across democracies and autocracies. The reason for this is that nondemocratic institutions might also influence the behaviour of political authorities. In contrast to their democratic counterparts, autocratic leaders are dependent on nondemocratic institutions. Subtypes of autocracies are commonly distinguished based on the institutions and persons that can appoint and dismiss autocratic leaders. The extent of dependence of the chief executive on hereditary succession, the military, and/or a single party can be regarded as capturing nondemocratic veto points at which political authorities might be hindered from acting in accordance with incentives generated by democratic institutions. Autocratic leaders might opt not to be responsive to public pressure to engage in climate protection. Political rights, deliberation, the representation of social groups, the participation of civil society, and local and regional democracy do not necessarily affect policy outcomes in autocracies (Schmitter and Sika 2017). In China, ENGOs and civil society do not have the same possibilities of influencing climate policy as their counterparts in democracies. In the 1970s and 1980s, the military regime in Chile accepted the formation of ENGOs and, in response to environmental awareness, even introduced a National Commission on Ecology. However, the Chilean junta did not prioritise environmental protection and did not implement the goals of the Commission (Carruthers 2001). The influence of nondemocratic institutions, therefore, should limit the effect of democratic aspects on CO2emissions. K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 729 Table 4 Democratic and nondemocratic institutions and annual changes in CO2emissions Democracies Autocracies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE GDP per capita –0.007*** 0.002 –0.003 0.003 –0.011** 0.005 –0.011** 0.005 –0.010* 0.005 GDP per capita squared –0.001 0.001 –0.003** 0.001 –0.005** 0.002 –0.003 0.002 –0.004* 0.002 Trade openness –0.005 0.004 –0.005 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.005 –0.000 0.005 Population density 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 –0.001 0.002 –0.002 0.003 Urban population 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 High income –0.006 0.007 –0.002 0.008 0.031 0.022 0.036 0.022 0.034 0.023 Political corruption –0.007 0.007 –0.011 0.012 –0.008 0.018 0.005 0.022 0.034 0.023 Nationalist 0.018*** 0.006 0.020*** 0.006 –0.020 0.012 –0.019 0.013 0.001 0.023 Conservative –0.005 0.006 –0.011 0.071 –0.029** 0.014 –0.023 0.015 –0.019 0.023 Socialist 0.009 0.007 0.010 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.014 –0.021 0.016 Electoral accountability – – –0.011 0.012 – – 0.010 0.008 0.010 0.008 Political rights – – –0.031*** 0.010 – – –0.033*** 0.012 –0.017 0.013 Horizontal accountability – – 0.002 0.005 – – 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.007 Civil rights – – 0.059 0.034 – – 0.071** 0.030 0.063** 0.030 K 730 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg Table 4 (Continued) Democracies Autocracies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) BSE BSE BSE BSE BSE Quality of deliberation – – 0.029** 0.013 – – 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.008 Direct democracy – – 0.008 0.015 – – –0.001 0.040 0.041 0.042 Civil society participation – – 0.120*** 0.027 – – 0.020 0.027 0.015 0.028 Local and regional democracy – – –0.009 0.008 – – 0.028** 0.014 0.015 0.014 Social equality – – –0.079*** 0.021 – – –0.096*** 0.026 –0.092*** 0.027 Hereditaryrule ––––––––0.017 0.022 Military rule ––––––––0.008 0.018 Partyrule ––––––––0.080*** 0.022 N 2138 2138 1874 1873 1873 Adjusted R20.035 0.050 0.003 0.015 0.021 BUnstandardised regression coefficients, SE standard error *p<0.1,**p< 0.05, ***p<0.01 K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 731 Fig. 2 Democratic institutions and annual changes in CO2 emissions in democracies. Standardised regression coefficients of model 5 in Table 3 Electoral accountability Political rights Horizontal accountability Civil rights Quality of deliberation Direct democracy Civil society participation Local and regional democracy Social equality 0. 0. 0.1 0 .1 .2 power of the regression model. Comparing standardised coefficients shows that the effect of civil society participation is more important for CO2emissions than the effects of the controls. Among the controls, population density contributes to climate protection. When we exclude influential cases and outliers, nationalist government ideology is positively associated with CO2emissions. Table 4examines annual changes in CO2emissions based on a first differences model. Among the controls, nationalist government ideology contributes to an increase in CO2emissions. The negative effect of political rights is not significant in all model specifications. In contrast to the theoretical expectations, greater participation of civil society increases annual CO2emissions (Fig. 2). Social equality contributes to lower annual CO2emissions. Comparing the standardised coefficients, the effects of civil society participation and social equality are stronger than the effect of the controls. 4.2 Autocracies Table 5illustrates that the implementation of democracy aspects varies among autocracies. This justifies our approach to examine their effects on CO2emissions. Nondemocracies with above-average values of party influence perform better on most measures associated with democratic aspects than autocracies with above-average values of hereditary or military rule. This is in accordance with our hypothesis that party rule should limit the influence of democratic incentives to a lesser extent than hereditary or military rule. Table 3displays the results for the linear trend of CO2emissions in autocracies. Social equality contributes to CO2emissions in autocracies. The positive effect of contested elections becomes insignificant in the analysis without influential cases and outliers. The extent of influence of the military on the chief executive is associated with a decrease in CO2emissions. Local and regional democracy is associated with lower CO2emissions. This effect is weaker than the positive effect of social equality (Fig. 3), and it is significant only in countries with below-average values of dependence of the chief executive on the military (Fig. 4). Hereditary rule and K 732 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg Table 5 Mean comparison of autocracies with above-average values of party, hereditary, and military rule Party rule Hereditary rule Military rule Electoral accountability 0.415 –0.167 0.160 Political rights 0.321 –0.196 0.259 Horizontal accountability 0.207 –0.082 –0.208 Civil rights 0.625 0.557 0.500 Quality of deliberation 0.563 0.470 0.494 Direct democracy 0.046 0.034 0.100 Civil society participation 0.585 0.477 0.572 Local and regional democracy 0.401 0.170 0.268 Social equality 0.600 0.516 0.451 For details on measurement, see methodology section party rule have no significant interaction with social equality. The inclusion of democratic as well as nondemocratic aspects to the regression model increases its explanatory power. Among the controls, trade openness decreases and income from natural resources increases CO2emissions. Income from natural resources is more important for climate outcomes than local and regional democracy or military rule. With regard to annual changes in CO2emissions (Table 4and Fig. 5), a greater influence of the ruling party on the chief executive is associated with an increase in CO2emissions. Social equality decreases emissions growth. Civil rights contribute to an increase in CO2emissions. The democratic and nondemocratic aspects are more important for annual changes in CO2emissions than the controls. The negative effect of social equality is significant only in countries with below-average values of party or military rule (Figs. 6and 7). These models control for income from fossil fuels; without this control variable and, therefore, more country-years, the effects apply for all values of party or military rule. While emissions increase with military influence, they decrease with the influence of the ruling party. Fig. 3 Democratic and nondemocratic institutions and the linear trend in CO2emissions in autocracies. Standardised regression coefficients of model 2 in Table 4 Electoral accountability Political rights Horizontal accountability Civil rights Quality of deliberation Direct democracy Civil society participation Local and regional democracy Social equality Hereditary rule Military rule Party rule 10.5 00.5 K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 733 0.5 0 0.5 1 Effects of local and regional democracy 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 00.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Military rule Fig. 4 Local and regional democracy, military rule, and the linear trend of CO2emissions. Cross-sectional regression results. N= 69. The figure displays the effects of local and regional democracy dependent on the extent of military rule Fig. 5 Democratic and nondemocratic institutions and annual changes in CO2emissions in autocracies. Standardised regression coefficients of model 5 in Table 4 Electoral accountability Political rights Horizontal accountability Civil rights Quality of deliberation Direct democracy Civil society participation Local and regional democracy Social equality Hereditary rule Military rule Party rule 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 4.3 Discussion of the Results In the theoretical literature, there is no agreement on the climate consequences of models of democracy. Our argument has been that among the democratic aspects, political rights, quality of deliberation, participation of civil society, local and regional democracy, and social equality in particular might contribute to climate protection, as these institutions help coordinate diffuse interests in the political decision-making K 734 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 Effects of social equality 00.5 1 Party rule Fig. 6 Social equality, party rule, and annual changes in CO2emissions. First differences regression. N= 1067 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Effects of social equality 0.5 0 0.5 1 Military rule Fig. 7 Social equality, military rule, and annual changes in CO2emissions. First differences regression. N= 1067 K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 735 process. The findings first partly support this hypothesis. In democracies, specific institutions of participatory and egalitarian democracy—civil society participation and social equality—matter for country differences in the linear trend of CO2emissions from 1990 to 2020 and for annual CO2emissions. In autocracies with local and regional quality of democracy, another aspect of participatory democracy affects climate outcomes. Democratic institutions have independent effects of government ideology on climate outcomes. The findings also remain stable if we control for the influence of presidential systems. In contrast to the hypotheses, there are no significant negative effects of political rights or quality of deliberation. It is important to consider that democratic institutions that coordinate diffuse interests in the political system, such as political rights, also enable opponents of climate protection to influence public opinion and undermine climate policy. Second, democratic effects on CO2emissions vary among democracies and autocracies. Thus, it is important to consider that the context in autocracies affects the responsiveness of governments to democratic incentives. The findings support our assumption that nondemocratic institutions affect the responsiveness of autocratic governments to incentives from democratic institutions. There is some support for the hypothesis that one-party rule limits the effects of democratic institutions less than the influence of other nondemocratic institutions. Military rule limits the effect of local and regional democracy on country differences in the linear trend in CO2 emissions and the negative effect of social equality on annual changes in CO2emissions. In contrast to our hypothesis, the negative effect of social equality on annual changes in CO2emissions becomes even stronger with the degree of dependence of the executive on party rule. Third, as expected, the explanatory models perform better in the explanation of long-term variation in climate outcomes among countries than annual changes in climate outcomes within countries. Nonetheless, democratic institutions also affect short-term changes in CO2emissions. The negative effects of civil society participation and social equality on CO2emissions in democracies support our hypothesis that democratic institutions support diffuse interests such as climate protection in the political decision-making process. Simultaneously, civil society participation is associated with an increase in annual CO2emissions in democratic countries. Civil society participation also enables opponents of climate protection to influence government policy. Therefore, it might decrease CO2emissions only in the long term because the formation of ENGOs and the development of an independent civil society take time (Fredriksson and Neumayer 2013). In autocracies, local and regional democracy is associated with a lower long-term trendinCO 2emissions, and social equality decreases annual changes in emissions. While social equality decreases CO2emissions in the short term, autocracies with higher levels of social equality are associated with higher levels of CO2emissions. Wu and Xie (2020) observe that inequality contributes in the long run to lower CO2 emissions. Equality contributes via increases in consumption, energy use, economic power, and capital accumulation to emissions. In accordance, among democratic institutions, social equality correlates strongly with economic development in autocracies. K 736 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg 5Conclusion Democratic institutions that coordinate diffuse interests can provide incentives for both democratic and autocratic governments to reduce climate emissions. The results offer some evidence that such democratic institutions matter for climate outcomes in democracies and autocracies. The participation of civil society and social equality contribute to lower CO2emissions in democracies. In autocracies, social equality and local and regional democracy are associated with a decline in CO2emissions. Nondemocratic institutions affect responsiveness to diffuse interests such as climate protection in autocracies. The extent of influence of the military weakens the climate consequences of democratic institutions. In contrast, the dependence on a ruling party strengthens the negative effect of social equality on annual changes in CO2 emissions in autocracies. Considering that the effects of democratic institutions on CO2emissions vary among democracies and autocracies at both the cross-national and temporal levels and with respect to moderator variables, the findings illustrate that the relationship between democratic institutions and climate outcomes is context dependent. Thus, future research could use in-depth case studies to improve our understanding of the causal mechanisms that link these democratic dimensions to climate protection. Second, the climate consequences of democratic institutions are partly dependent on the institutional context in autocratic regimes. Further studies could examine whether nondemocratic institutions also affect other dimensions of sustainability. Moreover, the effects of political institutions might be clearer for climate policy output, as climate outcomes are affected by various nonpolitical variables. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the editors of the special issue, Thomas Dietz, Doris Fuchs, Armin Schäfer, and Antje Vetterlein; two anonymous reviewers; and Peter Drahos for their helpful comments. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Conflict of interest R. Escher and M. Walter-Rogg declare that they have no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4. 0/. References Adam, Simpson, and Mattijs Smits. 2018. Transitions to energy and climate security in southeast asia? Civil society encounters with illiberalism in Thailand and Myanmar. Society & Natural Resources 31(5):580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1413720. Arias-Maldonado, Manuel. 2007. An imaginary solution? The green defence of deliberative democracy. Environmental Values 16(2):233–252. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327107780474573. K The Effects of Democratic and Nondemocratic Institutions on CO 2Emissions 737 Arvin, B. Mak, and Byron Lew. 2011. Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries? Applied Economics 43(9):1151–1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840802600277. Babones, Salvatore J. 2014. Methods for quantitative macro-comparative research. Los Angeles: SAGE. Bättig, Michèle B., and Thomas Bernauer. 2009. National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization 63(2):281–308. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0020818309090092. Beeson, Mark. 2010. The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environmental Politics 19(2):276–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903576918. Bernauer, Thomas, and Vally Koubi. 2009. Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecological Economics 68(5):1355–1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.003. Bernauer, Thomas, Tobias Böhmelt, and Vally Koubi. 2013. Is there a democracy-civil society paradox in global governance? Global Environmental Politics 13(1):88–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_ 00155. Böhmelt, Tobias. 2014. Political opportunity structures in dictatorships? Explaining ENGO existence in autocratic regimes. Journal of Environment & Development 23(4):446–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1070496514536396. Böhmelt, Tobias, Marit Böker, and Hugh Ward. 2016. Democratic inclusiveness, climate policy outputs, and climate policy outcomes. Democratization 23(7):1272–1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347. 2015.1094059. Bueno De Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow. 2003. The logic of political survival. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Burnell, Peter. 2012. Democracy, democratization and climate change: complex relationships. Democratization 19(5):813–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2012.709684. Carbonell, Joel R., and Juliann E. Allison. 2015. Democracy and state environmental commitment to international environmental treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 15(2):79–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9213-6. Carruthers, David. 2001. Environmental politics in Chile: legacies of dictatorship and democracy. Third World Quarterly 22(3):343–358. Cheibub, José Antonio, Jennifer Gandhi, and James Raymond Vreeland. 2010. Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice 143(1–2):67–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. Christoff, Peter, and Robyn Eckersley. 2011. Comparing state responses. In Oxford handbook of climate change and society, ed. John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg, 431–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clulow, Zeynep. 2019. Democracy, electoral systems and emissions: explaining when and why democratization promotes mitigation. Climate Policy 2019(2):244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062. 2018.1497938. Congleton, Roger D. 1992. Political institutions and pollution control. The Review of Economics and Statistics 74(3):412–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109485. Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, and Allen Hicken. 2011. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics 9(2):247–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711000880. Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, and Jan Teorell. 2021a. V-Dem [Country—Year/Country—Date] Dataset v11.1. Varieties of democracy (V-Dem). Project https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds21. Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, and Jan Teorell. 2021b. V-Dem Codebook v11.1. Varieties of democracy (V-Dem) project. https://www.v-dem.net/static/ website/img/refs/codebookv111.pdf. Accessed 21 June 2021. Cushing, Lara, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Madeline Wander, and Manuel Pastor. 2015. The haves, the havenots, and the health of everyone: The relationship between social inequality and environmental quality. Annual Review of Public Health 36:193–209. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth031914-122646. Dryzek, John S. 1987. Rational ecology: Environment and political economy. Oxford: Blackwell. Dryzek, John S. 1992. Ecology and discursive democracy: Beyond liberal capitalism and the administrative state. Capitalism Nature Socialism 3(2):18–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455759209358485. Duckett, Jane, and Guohui Wang. 2017. Why do authoritarian regimes provide public goods? Policy communities, external shocks and ideas in China’s rural social policy making. Europe-Asia Studies 69(1):92–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2016.1274379. Eckersley, Robyn. 1995. Liberal democracy and the rights of nature: The struggle for inclusion. Environmental Politics 4(4):169–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019508414232. K 738 R. Escher, M. Walter-Rogg Escher, Romy, and Melanie Walter-Rogg. 2018. Does the conceptualization and measurement of democracy quality matter in comparative climate policy research? Politics and Governance 6(1):117–144. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1187. Escher, Romy, and Melanie Walter-Rogg. 2020. Environmental performance in democracies and autocracies: democratic qualities and environmental protection.Cham:Palgrave.https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-38054-0. Fredriksson, Per G., and Eric Neumayer. 2013. Democracy and climate change policies: Is history important? Ecological Economics 95:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.002. Fredriksson, Per G., and Le Wang. 2011. Sex and environmental policy in the U.S. House of Representatives. Economics Letters 113:228–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.07.019. Gandhi, Jennifer, and Adam Przeworski. 2007. Authoritarian institutions and the survival of autocrats. Comparative Political Studies 40(11):1279–1301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007305817. Garmann, Sebastian. 2014. Do government ideology and fragmentation matter for reducing CO2-emissions? Empirical evidence from OECD countries. Ecological Economics 105:1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05. Gilley, Bruce. 2012. Authoritarian environmentalism and China’s response to climate change. Environmental Politics 21(2):287–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.651904. Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(2):352–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443. Haber, Stephen H., and Victor A. Menaldo. 2011. Do natural resources fuel authoritarianism? A reappraisal of the resource curse. American Political Science Review 105(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055410000584. Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell. 2007. Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18(1):143–156. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2007.0009. Hadenius, Axel, Jan Teorell, and Michael Wahman. 2017. Authoritarian regimes data set, version 6.0 codebook. https://xmarquez.github.io/democracyData/reference/wahman_teorell_hadenius.html.Accessed 1 July 2021. Hamilton, Clive. 2010. Requiem for a species. Why we resist the truth about climate change. London, Washington: Earthscan. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The tradegy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.162.3859.1243. Harrison, Kathryn, and Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom. 2010. Introduction: Global commons, domestic decisions. In Global commons, domestic decisions. The comparative politics of climate change,ed. Kathryn Harrison, Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom, 1–22. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Held, David, and Angus Hervey. 2011. Democracy, climate change and global governance: Democratic agency and the policy menu ahead. In The governance of climate change. Science, economics, politics and ethics, ed. David Held, Angus Hervey, and Marik Theros, 89–110. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press. Jahn, Detlef. 2021. Quick and dirty: how populist parties in government affect greenhouse gas emissions in EU member states. Journal of European Public Policy 28(7):980–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13501763.2021.1918215. Jensen, Christian B., and Jae-Jae Spoon. 2011. Testing the ‘party matters’ thesis: Explaining progress towards Kyoto Protocol targets. Political Studies 59(1):99–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248. 2010.00852.x. Kim, Doo-Rae, and Jong-Han Yoon. 2018. Decentralization, government capacity, and environmental policy performance: A cross-national analysis. International Journal of Public Administration 41:1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1318917. Kittel, Bernhard, and Hannes Winner. 2005. How reliable is pooled analysis in political economy? The globalization-welfare state nexus revisited. European Journal of Political Research 44(2):269–293. Larson, Anne M., and Fernanda Soto. 2008. Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33:213–239. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ. 33.020607.095522. Leggewie, Claus, and Harald Welzer. 2008. Can democracies deal with climate change. https://www. eurozine.com/can-democracies-deal-with-climate-change/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019. Lockwood, Matthew. 2018. Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: exploring the linkages. Environmental Politics 27(4):712–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411. Lührmann, Anna, Valeriya Mechkova, Sirianne Dahlum, Laura Maxwell, Moa Olin, Constanza Petrarca, Rachel Sigman, Matthew Wilson, and Staffan Lindberg. 2018. State of the world 2017: AutocK