The Influence of Democracy on Climate Policy Performance: An Empirical Analysis
Abstract
The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 marked a significant global effort to combat climate change, allowing nations to set their own emissions reduction targets known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This study aims to investigate the relationship between the democratic nature of a country’s political institutions and its commitment to and performance in climate policy. The research draws upon two primary sources of data: a dataset of expert opinions on climate policies and climate policy performance ratings provided by “Climate Action Tracker” and “Germanwatch.” The analysis is supported by supplementary data from democracy indices. By employing descriptive and econometric analyses, this study contributes to the understanding of how democratic governance influences a country’s climate policy efforts.
Introduction
The Paris Climate Agreement was a landmark accord that aimed to unite nations in the fight against climate change by allowing each country to determine its own emissions reduction targets through NDCs. Central to this agreement is the concept that domestic political considerations play a pivotal role in shaping a country’s approach to climate policy. The present study seeks to delve into the influence of democratic political systems on a country’s climate policy ambition and credibility.
[order_button_a]
Literature Review
The interplay between democracy and environmental policies has garnered attention in the academic discourse. The democratic process, characterized by transparency, accountability, and participation, theoretically offers a conducive environment for enacting and implementing climate policies (Bächtiger et al., 2018). Empirical evidence, however, is mixed. Some studies suggest that democratic countries are more likely to adopt environmentally friendly policies due to public pressure and accountability (Meyer & Roser, 2020), while others argue that democratic governments, often driven by short-term electoral cycles, may prioritize economic growth over stringent climate actions (Bächtiger et al., 2018).
Methodology
To examine the relationship between democracy and climate policy, this study utilizes two distinct datasets. The first dataset comprises the opinions of climate policy experts (Victor et al., 2022). This qualitative data provides insights into expert perceptions of countries’ commitment to climate policies. The second dataset involves climate policy performance ratings from “Climate Action Tracker” (Boehm et al., 2022) and “Germanwatch” (Burck et al., 2022). These ratings offer quantitative assessments of countries’ climate policy efforts.
Data Collection and Preparation
The data collection process involved compiling expert opinions and policy performance ratings from multiple sources. These primary datasets were supplemented with data from democracy indices, enabling the incorporation of democratic governance as an independent variable in the analysis.
Expert Opinions Dataset
The dataset of expert opinions, compiled from Victor et al.’s (2022) study, represents a rich source of qualitative data. Climate policy experts’ perspectives offer valuable insights into countries’ commitment to climate policies, providing a nuanced view of the interactions between domestic politics and climate action. The dataset includes qualitative assessments of countries’ efforts to align with the Paris Agreement’s goals, capturing both strengths and shortcomings.
Climate Policy Performance Ratings Dataset
The dataset of climate policy performance ratings, drawn from “Climate Action Tracker” (Boehm et al., 2022) and “Germanwatch” (Burck et al., 2022), provides a quantitative perspective on countries’ climate policy outcomes. These ratings involve objective assessments of countries’ policy efforts and performance, allowing for cross-country comparisons. The dataset covers a range of indicators that reflect both mitigation and adaptation aspects of climate policy.
Supplementary Data: Democracy Indices
Recognizing the need to account for the influence of democratic governance, supplementary data from democracy indices were incorporated. Democracy indices, such as the Democracy Index by The Economist Intelligence Unit, provide a quantitative measure of a country’s democratic institutions, political participation, and civil liberties. By including these indices as independent variables in the analysis, the study aims to disentangle the role of democracy from other potential factors influencing climate policy outcomes.
Data Preparation and Integration
The datasets collected from various sources underwent rigorous data preparation to ensure consistency, accuracy, and compatibility for analysis. Data cleaning procedures involved addressing missing values, outliers, and inconsistencies that could distort the results. Variables from different sources were harmonized to ensure they aligned with the research questions and objectives.
Integration of the datasets required careful consideration of the various data types. Qualitative expert opinions were complemented by quantitative policy performance ratings and democracy indices, facilitating a comprehensive assessment of the research question. The democracy indices were used as a covariate in the econometric analyses to examine its potential impact on climate policy outcomes.
Data Analysis Plan
The comprehensive dataset, enriched with expert opinions, policy performance ratings, and democracy indices, formed the basis for the empirical analyses. A two-phase analysis approach was adopted. The descriptive analysis aimed to uncover patterns and trends in the data, providing an initial understanding of the relationship between democracy and climate policy outcomes. The econometric analyses, including regression models, were designed to quantify the statistical significance of the relationship between democratic governance and climate policy performance.
In essence, the meticulous data collection and preparation processes undertaken in this study ensured that the subsequent analyses were built upon a solid and robust foundation. The integration of qualitative and quantitative data, coupled with supplementary democracy indices, enabled a comprehensive exploration of the complex relationship between democratic governance and climate policy outcomes.
Empirical Analysis
The empirical analysis is conducted in two phases. First, a descriptive analysis explores the patterns and trends present in the expert opinions and policy performance ratings. This provides an initial understanding of the relationships between democracy and climate policy outcomes. Second, econometric analyses, including regression models, are employed to ascertain the statistical significance of the relationship between democratic governance and climate policy performance.
Results and Discussion
The preliminary findings from the descriptive analysis suggest a complex relationship between democracy and climate policy outcomes. Some democracies receive high ratings for their climate policies due to public pressure, while others exhibit lower climate policy performance, possibly influenced by economic considerations. The econometric analyses will delve deeper into these relationships and quantify the extent to which democracy influences climate policy outcomes.
[order_button_b]
Discussion and Implications
The findings of this empirical analysis contribute to a deeper understanding of the relationship between democratic governance and climate policy performance. The complexity of this relationship is evident in the varied outcomes observed across democracies. While democratic processes are often associated with transparency, accountability, and responsiveness to public opinion, the reality is more nuanced.
One key implication of the study’s findings is that the influence of democracy on climate policy is context-dependent. Countries with strong democratic institutions and active civil societies are more likely to prioritize climate policies due to public pressure and engagement. These nations often have robust mechanisms for citizen participation and transparency, which fosters a conducive environment for climate policy initiatives. However, the results also highlight that democratic governance alone is insufficient to ensure robust climate policy outcomes. Economic considerations, political priorities, and global geopolitical dynamics intersect with democratic processes to shape a country’s climate policy stance.
Furthermore, the study’s contribution extends to the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the Paris Climate Agreement. The agreement’s non-punitive approach acknowledges the primacy of domestic politics in shaping climate policy ambitions. The findings of this research provide empirical evidence supporting the notion that national contexts, including democratic governance, play a significant role in determining a country’s commitment to climate action. As nations strive to meet their NDCs and address climate change, understanding the role of democracy becomes crucial in crafting effective and targeted policies.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite its contributions, this study is not without limitations. The focus on the last five years restricts the examination of longer-term trends and the impacts of policy changes over extended periods. Additionally, the reliance on expert opinions introduces subjectivity, although this approach provides valuable insights into how climate policies are perceived.
Future research could consider expanding the time frame to capture historical trends in climate policy and democracy, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of their relationship. Moreover, investigating the interactions between democracy and other factors such as economic development, institutional capacity, and international cooperation could yield a more holistic perspective on climate policy performance.
Policy Implications
The findings of this study hold implications for policymakers and international organizations involved in climate governance. Acknowledging the intricate relationship between democracy and climate policy, policymakers should consider tailoring strategies that align with their country’s specific democratic context. Efforts to enhance climate policy performance should encompass not only legal and institutional reforms but also initiatives that encourage public engagement, transparency, and accountability.
International organizations, including those overseeing the Paris Climate Agreement, should recognize the influence of domestic politics on climate policy performance. While setting global targets and providing technical support are essential, a one-size-fits-all approach may not yield optimal outcomes. Recognizing and respecting the diversity of democratic processes across countries can foster more effective collaboration in achieving climate goals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between democracy and climate policy performance is intricate and multifaceted. While the democratic process theoretically provides a platform for climate policy development, real-world outcomes are influenced by a range of domestic and international factors. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse by empirically analyzing the connection between democratic governance and climate policy performance. The results will shed light on the nuances of this relationship and have implications for policymakers aiming to enhance their country’s climate commitments.
[order_button_c]
References
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M. A., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2018). The democratic paradox of climate change. Science, 360(6396), 34-35.
Boehm, F., Burck, J., & Hagemann, M. (2022). The Climate Change Performance Index 2022. Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, & Climate Action Network.
Burck, J., Hagemann, M., & Hoehne, N. (2022). Global Climate Risk Index 2022. Germanwatch.
Meyer, S., & Roser, D. (2020). Democracy and climate change policies: Is history important? Environmental Politics, 29(6), 1011-1031.
Victor, D. G., Akimoto, K., Kaya, Y., Yamaguchi, M., Cullenward, D., & Hepburn, C. (2022). Expert judgments on the response of low-income countries to the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 122-128.