Global Environmentalism and the World-System: A Cross-National Analysis of Air Pollution

Abstract

Ambient air pollution represents a global health crisis, leading to 7 million annual deaths worldwide. The rise of a “global environmental regime” manifests in the widespread adoption of environmental policies and laws to reduce ambient air pollution, but debate remains whether they have any effect. Scholars argue that the relationship between the global environmental regime and air pollution depends on the penetration of the global environmental regime. In this analysis, I argue that the relationship between the global environmental regime and air pollution levels is contingent on a country’s position in the world-system. Using fixed effects panel analyses of 144 countries from 1990 to 2010, I find embeddedness in the global environmental regime does predict lower national air pollution levels. This effect, however, is smaller in semi-peripheral and peripheral countries. These findings contribute to an emerging body of scholarship integrating world society and world systems approaches in the study of the environment.

Foreign Direct Investment Dependence and the Neglected Greenhouse Gas: A Cross-National Analysis of Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Developing Countries, 1990–2014

“…N 2 O emissions are continuing to rise at unprecedented rates (WRI 2015). However, N 2 O emissions are a central issue in the global environmental regime and past research suggests embeddedness in environmental world society results in decreased environmental degradation (e.g., Hironaka 2014;Mejia 2020). Of course, environmental harm continues at unprecedented rates but even slight reductions in N 2 O emissions could be beneficial given its high global warming potential and impact on stratospheric ozone depletion.…”

“…These data are measured in thousands and based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship. Research in the structural human ecology tradition and previous cross-national research suggests population levels are positively associated with environmental degradation (e.g., Dietz and Rosa 1997;Dietz, Rosa, and York 2007;Mejia 2020). Value added in agriculture measures the extent a country's domestic economy revolves around agriculture.…”

Domestic autonomy and environmental international non-governmental organizations: a cross-national analysis of forest loss

“…Suspected and documented noncompliance between policies and outcomes is often referred to as "decoupling." Researchers find this disconnect, or decoupling in a wide variety of global values, including human rights (Hafner-Burton and Tsutsui 2005), women"s rights (Boyle, Songora, and Foss 2001), health (Inoue and Drori 2006), economic growth (Jorgenson and Clark 2012), and environmental protection (Frank et al 2000;Gupta 2015;Hargrove et al 2019;Henderson and Shorette 2017;Mejia 2020;Shorette 2012;.…”

Deforestation in the Global South: Assessing Uneven Environmental Improvements 1993–2013

“…Meanwhile, some show that capitalist structures and world culture jointly interact (Givens and Jorgenson 2014; Henderson and Shorette 2017; Longhofer and Jorgenson 2017; Shorette 2012); global institutions mitigate a variety of environmental harms, but, these effects vary relative to positionality in the world system or foreign capital penetration. For instance, countries in the core, semiperiphery, and periphery exhibit disparate reductions of air pollution and uneven cuts to agricultural chemicals and pesticides (Mejia 2019; Shorette 2012). Do similar dynamics hold for deforestation?…”

“…Dependency on vertical trade flows with wealthy countries, and, integration in the global economy through export-led industrialization entrench despoliation (Bunker and Ciccantell 2005; Jorgenson 2006). Some researchers integrate these approaches (Givens and Jorgenson 2014; Henderson and Shorette 2017; Jorgenson, Dick, and Shandra 2011; Longhofer and Jorgenson 2017; Mejia 2019; Shorette 2012). Generally, studies indicate that the ameliorative effects of global environmental institutions are conditioned by political-economic forces.…”