In this paper, we present an analysis of the leaders’ backgrounds shaping their decisions towards environmental policy outcomes of nascent democracies such as countries in Southeast Asia, with a specific focus on leaders’ traits and socio-economic conditions. Drawing on factors that influence a leader's decision-making process, including external factors such as social and economic and internal factors (cognitive or traits), this study explores the variation of quality of environmental policy outcomes in Southeast Asian countries. Our findings suggest that the level of development negatively affects environmental policy outcomes, while democratic conditions do not play a significant role. We also find that leaders’ age and level of education negatively affect environmental policy outcomes, whereas gender is not correlated with the quality of the environment. This research provides valuable insights into the environmental policy landscape of Southeast Asia and offers recommendations for policymakers seeking to enhance environmental policy outcomes in the region.
AssettoVJHajbaEMummeSP (2003) Democratization, decentralization, and local environmental policy capacity: Hungary and Mexico. The Social Science Journal40(2): 249–268.
2.
BättigMBBernauerT (2009) National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy?International Organization63(2): 281–308.
3.
BiscottiAMD’AmicoE (2016) What are political leaders’ environmental intentions? The impact of social identification processes and macro-economic conditions. Ecological Economics129: 152–160.
4.
BrolloFTroianoU (2016) What happens when a woman wins an election? Evidence from close races in Brazil. Journal of Development Economics122: 28–45.
5.
BryantRL (1998) Resource politics in colonial South-East Asia: A conceptual analysis. In: KingVT (eds) Environmental Challenges in South-East Asia. Richmond: Curzon Press, 27–52.
6.
ChangLLuHJLiH, et al. (2011) The face that launched a thousand ships: The mating-warring association in men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin37(7): 976–984.
7.
ChodorowN (1978) Mothering, object-relations, and the female oedipal configuration. Feminist Studies4(1): 137–158.
8.
ClarkeKAStoneRW (2008) Democracy and the logic of political survival. American Political Science Review102(3): 387–392.
9.
ConstantATienB (2010) African leaders: Their education abroad and FDA flows. IZA discussion paper 5353. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
10.
DavidsonDJFreudenburgWR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior28(3): 302–339.
11.
De MesquitaBBSiversonRM (1995) War and the survival of political leaders: A comparative study of regime types and political accountability. American Political Science Review89(4): 841–855.
12.
De MesquitaBBSmithASiversonRM, et al. (2005) The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Diaz-SerranoLKallisG (2022) Political leaders with professional background in business and climate outcomes. Climatic Change172(1): 1–20.
FrantzESteinEA (2017) Countering coups: Leadership succession rules in dictatorships. Comparative Political Studies50(7): 935–962.
16.
GarmannS (2014) Do government ideology and fragmentation matter for reducing co2-emissions? Empirical evidence from oecd countries. Ecological Economics105: 1–10.
17.
HollyerJRRosendorffBP (2012) Leadership survival, regime type, policy uncertainty and PTA accession. International Studies Quarterly56(4): 748–764.
18.
HorowitzMMcDermottRStamAC (2005) Leader age, regime type, and violent international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution49(5): 661–685.
19.
InoguchiTMarshI (2007) Globalisation, public opinion and the state: Western Europe and East and Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.
20.
KimNKKroegerAM (2018) Regime and leader instability under two forms of military rule. Comparative Political Studies51(1): 3–37.
21.
KnillCDebusMHeichelS (2010) Do parties matter in internationalised policy areas? The impact of political parties on environmental policy outputs in 18 OECD countries, 1970–2000. European Journal of Political Research49(3): 301–336.
22.
LiJXiTYaoY (2020) Empowering knowledge: Political leaders, education, and economic liberalization. European Journal of Political Economy61: 101823.
23.
LimJHTangS-Y (2002) Democratization and environmental policy-making in Korea. Governance15(4): 561–582.
24.
MavisakalyanATarverdiY (2019) Gender and climate change: Do female parliamentarians make difference?European Journal of Political Economy56: 151–164.
25.
McCarthyS (2014a) Democratic change and forest governance in the asia pacific: Implications for Myanmar. Asia-Pacific issues112: 1.
26.
McCarthyS (2014b) Norm diffusion and the limits to forestry governance reform in Southeast Asia’s new democracies. The Pacific Review27(5): 755–778.
27.
MorrowJDDe MesquitaBBSiversonRM, et al. (2008) Retesting selectorate theory: Separating the effects of W from other elements of democracy. American Political Science Review102(3): 393–400.
28.
SudduthJK (2017) Coup risk, coup-proofing and leader survival. Journal of Peace Research54(1): 3–15.
29.
WangCMyintSW (2016) Environmental concerns of deforestation in Myanmar 2001–2010. Remote Sensing8(9): 728.
