This study explores whether the development of democracy can significantly affect CO2 emissions and the energy efficiencies in the countries. Database reference from Freedom House, Polity IV project and World Development Indicator was applied to analyze the relationship between the democracy development, CO2 emissions and the energy efficiency of 26 countries in America from the year 1990 to 2013. Empirical result shows that the deepening democracy has a significant impact on the reduction of national CO2 emissions and brings a positive influence on energy efficiency. The further application of quantile regression also indicates that the influence of democratization on CO2 emissions and countries' energy efficient scores is significant. The empirical results may reflect the reduction of emission or the improvement of energy efficient outcome from the enhancement of democratic institution.
AcemogluDRobinsonJA.The economic origins of dictatorship and democracy.
New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
5.
GluzmannPSturzeneggerF.An estimation of CPI biases in Argentina 1985–2005 and its implications on real income growth and income distribution. Lat Am Econ Rev2018;
27: 8.
6.
ErikssonCPerssonJ.Economic growth, democratization, and the environment. Environ Res Econ2003;
25: 1–16.
7.
AcemogluDRobinsonJAYaredP.From education to democracy. Am Econ Rev2005;
95: 1369–1401.
8.
FarzinHYBondCA.Democracy and environmental quality. J Develop Econ2006;
81: 213–235.
9.
AcemogluDRobinsonJAYaredP.Income and democracy. Am Econ Rev2008;
98: 808–842.
10.
RuostetsaariI.Stealth democracy, elitism, and citizenship in Finnish energy policy. Energy Res Soc Sci2017;
34: 93–103.
11.
BernauerTKoubiV.Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecol Econ2009;
68: 1355–1365.
12.
LibmanA.Natural resources and sub-national economic performance: does subnational democracy matter?Energy Econ2013;
37: 82–99.
13.
PovitkinaMJagersSCSjöstedtM, et al.
Democracy, development and the marine environment – a global time-series investigation. Ocean Coast Manag2015;
105: 25–34.
14.
CongletonRD.Political institutions and pollution control. Rev Econ Stat1992;
74: 412–421.
15.
TorrasMBoyceJK.Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ1998;
25: 147–160.
16.
BarrettSGraddyK.Freedom, growth, and the environment. Envir Dev Econ2000;
5: 433–456.
17.
FredrikssonPGNeumayerEDamaniaR, et al.
Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution control. J Environ Econ Manage2005;
49: 343–365.
18.
ListJASturmDM.How elections matter: theory and evidence from environmental policy. Quarter J Econ2006;
121: 1249–1281.
19.
BättigMBBernauerT.National institutions and global public goods: are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy?Int Org2009;
63: 282–308.
20.
PerssonTTabelliniG.Democratic capital: the nexus of political and economic change. Am Econ J2009;
1: 88–126.
21.
FostenJMorleyBTaylorT.Dynamic misspecification in the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from CO2 and SO2 emissions in the United Kingdom. Ecol Econ2012;
76: 25–33.
22.
FredrikssonPGNeumayerE.Democracy and climate change policies: is history important?Ecol Econ2013;
95: 11–19.
23.
LvZ.The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: does the level of income matter?Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017;
72: 900–906.
24.
SternDI.The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Develop2004;
32: 1419–1439.
25.
CironeAEUrpelainenJ.Political market failure? The effect of government unity on energy technology policy in industrialized democracies. Technovation2013;
33: 333–344.
26.
CsereklyeiZSternDI.Global energy use: decoupling or convergence?Energy Econ2015;
51: 633–641.
27.
MidlarskyMI.Democracy and the environment: an empirical assessment. J Peace Res1998;
35: 341–361.
28.
ScruggsLA.Political and economic inequality and the environment. Ecol Econ1998;
26: 259–275.
29.
RobertsJTParksBC.A climate of injustice: global inequality, North–South politics,and climate policy.
Massachusetts:
MIT Press, 2007.
30.
YouWHZhuHMYuKM, et al.
Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Develop2015;
66: 189–207.
31.
JoshiPBeckK.Democracy and carbon dioxide emissions: assessing the interactions of political and economic freedom and the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Res Soc Sci2018;
39: 46–54.
32.
LinBLiJ.The rebound effect for heavy industry: empirical evidence from China. Energy Policy2014;
74: 589–599.
33.
AhlborgHBorängFJagersSC, et al.
Provision of electricity to African households: the importance of democracy and institutional quality. Energy Policy2015;
87: 125–135.
34.
BorängFJagersSCPovitkinaM.Political determinants of electricity provision in small island developing states. Energy Policy2016;
98: 725–734.
35.
ZhouPAngBWZhouDQ.Measuring economy-wide energy efficiency performance: a parametric frontier approach. Appl Energy2012;
90: 196–200.
36.
SundeUCervellatiMFortunatoP.Are all democracies equally good? The role of interactions between political environment and inequality for rule of law. Econ Lett2008;
99: 552–556.
