Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T00:17:01.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The marginal impact of ENGOs in different types of democratic systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2014

Tobias Böhmelt*
Affiliation:
Department of Government Colchester, University of Essex, UK Center for Comparative and International Studies Zurich, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Thomas Bernauer
Affiliation:
Center for Comparative and International Studies Zurich, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Vally Koubi
Affiliation:
Department of Economics Bern Switzerland, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Abstract

Conventional wisdom suggests that environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) play a major role in pushing states towards more ambitious environmental policies. However, demonstrating that this presumption is in fact true is rather difficult, because the same system structures of democracies that may create more opportunities for ENGO activities are also, on their own, conducive to better environmental policies. This leaves open the possibility that the additional (marginal) impact of ENGOs on policy making is smaller than presumed. In trying to disentangle these effects, this paper examines the influence of ENGOs contingent on key structural characteristics of democratic systems. We develop the argument that presidential systems with a plurality electoral rule per se tend to provide more environmental public goods, which induces a smaller marginal impact of ENGOs. Conversely, parliamentary systems with a proportional representation electoral rule are likely to provide fewer environmental public goods, which allows for a larger marginal impact of ENGOs. We find robust empirical support for these hypotheses in analyses that focus on the ratification behavior of 75 democracies vis-à-vis 250 international environmental agreements in 1973–2002.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aichele, R. and Felbermayr, G. (2012), ‘Kyoto and the Carbon Footprint of Nations’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63(3): 336354.Google Scholar
Armingeon, K., Weisstanner, D., Engler, S., Potolidis, P., Gerber, M. and Leimgruber, P. (2011), Comparative Political Data Set I, 1960–2009. CODEBOOK, Berne: University of Berne.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. (2000), ‘Redistributing income under proportional representation’, Journal of Political Economy 108(6): 12351269.Google Scholar
Baccaro, L. and Simoni, M. (2008), ‘Policy concertation in Europe: understanding government choice’, Comparative Political Studies 41(10): 13231348.Google Scholar
Bättig, M.B. and Bernauer, T. (2009), ‘National Institutions and Global Public Goods: are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy?’, International Organization 63(2): 281308.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., Berry, J., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. and Leech, B. (2009), Lobbying and Policy Change. Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beck, N., Katz, J.N. and Tucker, R. (1998), ‘Taking time seriously: time-series cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable’, American Journal of Political Science 42(4): 12601288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, T., Clarke, G., Groff, A., Keefer, P. and Walsh, P. (2001), ‘New tools in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions’, World Bank Economic Review 15(1): 165176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T. and Koubi, V. (2009), ‘Effects of political institutions on air quality’, Ecological Economics 68(5): 13551365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T. and Betzold, C. (2012), ‘Civil society in global environmental governance’, Journal of Environment and Development 21(1): 6266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T. and Gampfer, R. (2013), ‘Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance’, Global Environmental Change 23(2): 439449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T. and Koubi, V. (2013), ‘Is There a democracy-civil society paradox in global environmental governance?’, Global Environmental Politics 13(1): 88107.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., Koubi, V. and Spilker, G. (2010), ‘A comparison of international and domestic sources of global governance dynamics’, British Journal of Political Science 40(3): 509538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beron, K.J., Murdoch, J.C. and Vijverberg, W.P.M. (2003), ‘Why cooperate? Public goods, economic power, and the Montreal protocol’, Review of Economics and Statistics 85(2): 286297.Google Scholar
Betsill, M.M. (2006), ‘Transnational actors in international environmental politics’, in M.M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler and D. Stevis (eds), Palgrave Advances in International Environmental Politics, Houndsmill and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 172202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betsill, M.M. and Corell, E. (2001), ‘NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: a framework for analysis’, Global Environmental Politics 1(4): 6585.Google Scholar
Betsill, M.M. and Corell, E. (eds) (2008), NGO Diplomacy. The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. (2004), ‘Voice and access: political practices of European interest associations’, European Union Politics 5(2): 211240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F. and Gupta, A. (2011), ‘Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework’, Ecological Economics 70(11): 18561864.Google Scholar
Binder, S. and Neumayer, E. (2005), ‘Environmental pressure group strength and air pollution: an empirical analysis’, Ecological Economics 55(4): 527538.Google Scholar
Böhmelt, T. and Betzold, C. (2013), ‘The impact of environmental interest groups in international environmental negotiations: do ENGOs induce stronger environmental commitments?’, International Environmental Agreements 13(2): 124151.Google Scholar
Böhmelt, T. and Vollenweider, J. (2014), ‘Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network’, International Environmental Agreements, (in print).Google Scholar
Boix, C. (1999), ‘Setting the rules of the game: the choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies’, American Political Science Review 93(3): 609624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006), ‘Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analysis’, Political Analysis 14(1): 6382.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, B.F. (2004), ‘Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms’, International Organization 58(4): 807820.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R.M. and Morrow, J.D. (2003), The Logic of Political Survival, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cao, X. and Ward, H. (2011), Authoritarian Regimes and Environmental Performance: A Supply–Side Account , University of Essex, Typescript.Google Scholar
Chayes, A. and Chayes, H. (1993), ‘On compliance’, International Organization 47(2): 175205.Google Scholar
Chhibber, P. and Nooruddin, I. (2004), ‘Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian States’, Comparative Political Studies 37(2): 152187.Google Scholar
Christiansen, P., Norgaard, A., Rommetvedt, H., Svensson, T., Thesen, G. and Öberg, P. (2010), Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making, Aarhus: Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
Congleton, R.D. (1992), ‘Political institutions and pollution control’, Review of Economics and Statistics 74(3): 412421.Google Scholar
Corell, E. (2008), ‘NGO influence in the negotiations of the desertification convention’, in M.M. Betsill and E. Corell (eds), NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 101118.Google Scholar
Corell, E. and Betsill, M.M. (2001), ‘A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: desertification and climate change’, Global Environmental Politics 1(4): 86106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. (1997), Making Votes Count, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, J.F. and Richter, A.W. (2006), ‘Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test’, Journal of Applied Psychology 91(4): 917926.Google Scholar
Della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. (2004), Transnational Protest and Global Activism, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2012), ‘Global civil society: the progress of post-Westphalian politics’, Annual Review of Political Science 15(1): 101119.Google Scholar
Dür, A. (2008), ‘Interest groups in the European Union: how powerful are they?’, West European Politics 31(6): 12121230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A. and De Bièvre, D. (2007), ‘The question of interest group influence’, Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 112.Google Scholar
Duverger, M. (1972), ‘Factors in a two-party and multiparty system’, in M. Duverger (ed.), Party Politics and Pressure Groups, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, pp. 2332.Google Scholar
Fearon, J.D. (1998), ‘Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation’, International Organization 52(2): 269305.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998), ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization 52(4): 887917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorino, D.J. (2011), ‘Explaining national environmental performance: approaches, evidence and implications’, Policy Science 44(4): 367389.Google Scholar
Frank, D.J. (1999), ‘The Social Bases of Environmental Treaty Ratification, 1900–1990’, Sociological Inquiry 69(4): 523555.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G. and Gaston, N. (2000), ‘Ratification of the 1992 Climate Change Convention: what determines legislative delay?’, Public Choice 104(3–4): 345368.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G. and Millimet, D.L. (2004a), ‘Electoral rules and environmental policy’, Economics Letters 84(2): 237244.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G. and Millimet, D.L. (2004b), ‘Comparative politics and environmental taxation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48(1): 705722.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G. and Ujhelyi, G. (2006), Political Institutions, Interest Groups, and the Ratification of International Environmental Agreements, University of Louisville, Typescript.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G. and Wollscheid, J.R. (2007), ‘Democratic institutions versus autocratic regimes: the case of environmental policy’, Public Choice 130(3–4): 381393.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G., Neumayer, E. and Ujhelyi, G. (2007), ‘Kyoto Protocol Cooperation: does government corruption facilitate environmental lobbying?’, Public Choice 133(1–2): 231251.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G., Matschke, X. and Minier, J. (2010), ‘Environmental policy in majoritarian systems’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59(2): 177191.Google Scholar
Fredriksson, P.G., Neumayer, E., Damania, R. and Gates, S. (2005), ‘Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution control’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49(2): 343365.Google Scholar
Gemmill, B. and Bamidele-Izu, A. (2002), ‘The role of NGOs and Civil Society in Global Environmental Governance’, in D. Esty and M. Ivanova (eds), Global Environmental Governance: Options and Opportunities, New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, pp. 77100.Google Scholar
Gerdung, A. (2004), ‘Global Environmental Governance and the role of Civil Society Groups’, New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law 8(1): 5598.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, K.S. (2002), ‘Expanded trade and GDP data’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(5): 712724.Google Scholar
Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1995), ‘Economic growth and the environment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(2): 353377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. and Andresen, S. (2004), ‘NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks’, Global Environmental Politics 4(4): 5475.Google Scholar
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2006), IUCN Membership Relations and Governance – Membership List, Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Jordan, G., Halpin, D. and Maloney, W. (2004), ‘Defining interests: disambiguation and the need for new directions’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 195212.Google Scholar
Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H.P. (1986), ‘Political opportunity structures and political protest. Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies’, British Journal of Political Science 16(1): 5785.Google Scholar
Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘“ Effective” number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 327.Google Scholar
Lake, D. and Baum, M. (2001), ‘The invisible hand of democracy: political control and the provision of public service’, Comparative Political Studies 34(6): 587621.Google Scholar
Leeds, B.A. (1999), ‘Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation’, American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 9791002.Google Scholar
Lehmbruch, G. (1977), ‘Liberal corporatism and party government’, Comparative Political Studies 10(1): 91126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leinaweaver, J. (2012), Autocratic Ratification: Environmental Cooperation to Prolong Survival, Drury University, Typescript.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1984), Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of democracy . Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Democracies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lizzeri, A. and Persico, N. (2001), ‘The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives’, American Economic Review 91(1): 225239.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, S. (1993), ‘Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy. The difficult combination’, Comparative Political Studies 26(2): 198228.Google Scholar
Marshall, M.G. and Jaggers, K. (2013), Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2012. Dataset User’s Manual, College Park, MA: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Martin, L. (1993), ‘Credibility, costs, and institutions. Cooperation on economic sanctions’, World Politics 45(3): 406432.Google Scholar
McGuire, M. and Olson, M. (1996), ‘The economics of autocracy and majority rule: the invisible hand and the use of force’, Journal of Economic Literature 34(1): 7296.Google Scholar
Milesi-Ferretti, G.M., Perotti, R. and Rostagno, M. (2002), ‘Electoral systems and public spending’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(2): 609665.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J.C., Sandler, T. and Vijverberg, W.P.M. (2003), ‘The participation decision versus the level of participation in an environmental treaty: a spatial probit analysis’, Journal of Public Economics 87(2): 337362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2002), ‘Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis’, Journal of Peace Research 39(2): 139164.Google Scholar
Payne, Roger A. (1995), ‘Freedom and the environment’, Journal of Democracy 6(3): 4155.Google Scholar
Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (1999), ‘The size and scope of government: comparative politics with rational politicians’, European Economic Review 43(4–6): 699735.Google Scholar
Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2003), The Economic Effects of Constitutions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. (2004), ‘Constitutional rules and fiscal policy outcomes’, American Economic Review 94(1): 2545.Google Scholar
Persson, T., Roland, G. and Tabellini, G. (2000), ‘Comparative politics and public finance’, Journal of Political Economy 108(6): 11211141.Google Scholar
Persson, T., Roland, G. and Tabellini, G. (2007), ‘Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2(2): 609657.Google Scholar
Pevehouse, J.C., Nordstrom, T. and Warnke, K. (2004), ‘The COW-2 International Organizations Dataset Version 2.0’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 21(2): 101119.Google Scholar
Powell, B.G. (2000), Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. (1997), ‘States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions’, International Studies Quarterly 41(4): 719740.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. (2001), ‘Non-state actors in the global climate regime’, in U. Luterbacher and D. Sprinz (eds), International Relations and Global Climate Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95117.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1976), ‘The number of political parties: a reexamination of Duverger’s Law’, Comparative Politics 9(1): 93106.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1982), ‘The two-party system and Duverger’s Law: an essay on the history of political science’, American Political Science Review 76(4): 753766.Google Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1994), ‘Ideas don’t float freely’, International Organization 48(2): 185214.Google Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1995), Bringing Transnational Relations Back In, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, T.J., Parks, B.C. and Vásquez, A.A. (2004), ‘Who ratifies environmental treaties and why? Institutionalism, structuralism and participation by 192 nations in 22 treaties’, Global Environmental Politics 4(3): 2264.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R. and Kayser, M.A. (2002), ‘Majoritarian electoral systems and consumer power: price-level evidence from the OECD countries’, American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 526539.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.J. and Urpelainen, J. (2013), ‘Distributional conflict between powerful states and international treaty ratification’, International Studies Quarterly 57(1): 1327.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. (2003), Sustaining Abundance: Environmental Performance in Industrial Democracies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seleden, T. and Song, D. (1994), ‘Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets Curve for air pollution emissions?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27(2): 147162.Google Scholar
Simmons, B.A., Dobbin, F. and Garrett, G. (2006), ‘Introduction: the international diffusion of liberalism’, International Organization 60(4): 781810.Google Scholar
Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A. and Kriesi, H. (eds) (2004), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steffek, J. and Ferretti, M. (2009), ‘Accountability or “Good Decisions?” The competing goals of Civil Society participation in International Governance’, Global Society 23(1): 3757.Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M.S. (1989), Seats and Votes, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
von Stein, J. (2008), ‘The International Law and Politics of Climate Change’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(2): 243268.Google Scholar
Vreeland, J.R. (2008), ‘The effect of political regime on Civil War – unpacking anocracy’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(3): 401425.Google Scholar
Ward, H. (2008), ‘Liberal democracy and sustainability’, Environmental Politics 17(3): 386409.Google Scholar
Ward, H. and Cao, X. (2012), ‘Domestic and international influences on green taxation’, Comparative Political Studies 45(9): 10751103.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Böhmelt Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Böhmelt Supplementary Material(File)
File 45.8 KB