National environmental performance: an empirical analysis of policy results and determinants

Abstract

Efforts to identify the determinants of environmental policy success have largely been anecdotal and case study based. This article seeks to shift environmental policy analysis on to more analytically rigorous and empirical foundations. Using statistical analysis, we identify a set of factors that drive environmental performance as measured by levels of urban particulates, sulfur dioxide, and energy use per unit of GDP. Although the data are imperfect and causal linkages cannot be definitively established, the statistical analysis presented suggests that environmental results vary not only with income levels as suggested by the environmental Kuznet's curve literature but also with both the sophistication of a nation's regulatory regime and perhaps more notably, its broader economic and social circumstances.

Environmental Performance in Countries Worldwide: Determinant Factors and Multivariate Analysis

“…Economic theory suggests that control of pollution improves as a country develops, and thus, rich countries not only can, but should, invest in pollution control and other environmental improvements [22]. With the same criteria, Jahn [23] considers that countries with greater economic growth are better able to handle environmental problems, because they have the financial resources to do so.…”

“…With respect to the first theory, Esty and Porter [22] found a significant relation between income and environmental performance, suggesting that the alleviation of poverty should be considered a priority in environmental policy; nonetheless, some authors argue that the ecological Kuznets curve theory is only valid for a small class of environmental impacts and may not be applicable to developing countries [24]. According to Dinda [25], environmental pressure increases more rapidly than income in the initial stage of development and then decreases in relation to growth in GDP at higher income levels.…”

“…As mentioned above, besides economic factors, in recent years, there has been an increase in the consideration of other factors that may affect environmental performance (e.g., political factors, structural factors, competitiveness), as manifested in studies, such as the one by Esty and Porter [22]. These authors find significant differences in the environmental performance of countries having similar economic levels, which suggests that environmental results are not merely a function of economic development, but also a consequence of policy choice.…”

Variables Perceived by Managers as Antecedents That Lead Firms to Environmental Management: An Empirical Research in the Turkish Construction Sector

“…In previous studies it is stated that the increases in three components of the financial structure, namely profit rate (Brammer and Pavelin, 2008;Hontou et al, 2007;Wagner and Schaltegger 2004), financial resources (Brammer and Pavelin, 2008;Clausen et al, 2003;Hamans, 2009a;Hoffman, 2000;Orsato, 2006;Wagner and Schaltegger 2004) and turnover (Wagner and Schaltegger, 2004) increases the environmental sensitivity of firms. Furthermore, it has been considered that the increases in two components of the organizational structure, number of employees (Brammer and Pavelin, 2008;Clausen et al, 2003;Delmas and Toffel, 2004;Esty and Porter, 2005;Henri and Journeault, 2008a;Sarmentoa et al, 2007;Wagner and Schaltegger 2004) and level of institutionalizing, leads (directs) firms toward environmental management. Thus, with the effect of the past performance of a firm, the environmental sensitivities and intentionality of managers of such firms to environmental management implementations will increase.…”

The Development Gap Between the CIS and EU

“…On the other hand, common sense and recent studies prove that increased wealth is a prerequisite for environmental improvements (Grossman and Krueger 1995). Several empirical studies have likewise shown that wealth is an important factor in explaining environmental policy results, but not alone determinative of environmental policy (Esty and Porter 2005).…”