Autocratic heterogeneity in the provision of environmental protection

Abstract

Only few studies have investigated the link between the heterogeneity of non-democratic regime types and environmental protection. This study disaggregates authoritarian regimes and identifies four patterns of environmental performance. Using 16 indicators of environmental performance, autocratic subtypes such as royal dictatorships, military dictatorships, hegemonic autocracies, and competitive authoritarian regimes are compared and contrasted with democracies. The results demonstrate that a democracy advantage in the protection of the environment, as many former studies find it, typically cannot be confirmed for all autocratic subtypes. We rather detect a quite manifold picture when the variety of authoritarianism is taken into account.

In our (frozen) backyard: the Eurasian Union and regional environmental governance in the Arctic

“…However, bringing these two facts together may suggest that there is a benefit to the EaEU in entering the environmental realm more wholeheartedly, resorting to a favored notion of economists, namely competition. Eichhorn and Linhart (2022) note that there is substantial heterogeneity among autocracies, and this heterogeneity translates into different approaches to environmental protection; thus, just because Belarusian leader Lukashenka has no environmental priorities does not mean that Kazakh leader Tokayev will feel the same way. Greater involvement of the EaEU in certain environmental policies may thus encourage progress, especially in areas where other members are not engaged.…”

Have autocrats governed for the long term?

“…He also finds major differences between regime subtypes, such as monarchies or military regimes. Eichhorn and Linhart (2022) look in detail at how outcomes vary with the subtype of regime. 8 Our own analysis is closest to one carried out by Krznaric and McQuilkin, and summarized in Krznaric (2020, pp.…”