introduction

Climate change is a pressing global issue. Existing policies seem insufficient to cover the ambition level of the Paris Agreement (Baptista et al., 2). It is worthwile to study the ways in which different types of governance forms contribute to climate change.

In addition to the problem of climate change, there has been a global trend of the number and quality of democracies declining.

We are thus living in an era of insufficient climate action and in an era of autocratization. The question which arises from this is how processes of autocratization may affect climate action. Is there a link between autocratization and climate change?

There has been little research systematically examining a large amount of cases of countries which have become more autocratic in relation to their policies and impact regarding the environment. This project therefore aims to answer the following question: what is the impact of autocratization on environmental performance?

In this project, [x] cases of autocratic episodes are analyzed, all of which are cases of incumbent-led democratic recession. For each case, an overview is given of the literature surrounding the autocratization episode and the environmental policies and performance. The environmental performance is also analyzed more quantitatively: data from V-Dem is used to indicate the autocratization episode, and data from the Environmental Performance Index is used to indicate the country’s environmental performance.

concepts

The concepts which are necessary to understand are explained below.

• autocratization: the process of a country becoming more autocratic. In this project, only cases of incumbent-led democratic recession are analyzed, so that is what autocratization refers to in the case studies.
• environmental performance: the track record which a country has had regarding the environment, either in terms of its actions or its CO₂ emission trend.
• autocratization episode: a period during which a democratic country autocratized. The episodes are based on V-Dem data.

For more information on how these concepts were applied, see the Methodology chapter.

literature review

In the literature, considerable attention has been paid to the way in which environmental policymaking differs in autocracies compared to democracies. In addition, there has been a lot of research on the effects of democracy on the environment. Studying these findings may provide valuable insights to estimate what happens to a democratic country’s environmental policymaking when it is becoming more autocratic. However, there are mixed findings overall regarding the effect of democracy or autocracy on the environment. It is thus not clear whether autocracy is good or bad for the environment.

There is a tension at play here: democracies and autocracies seem to offer different upsides and downsides.

On the one hand, democratic governance can generally be considered preferable to autocratic governance for a number of reasons. Firstly, democratic countries seem to perform better when it comes to economic development. The reason for this is somewhat uncertain (Harding & Wantchekon, 2010, p. 12), but research by Acemoglu et al. (2019, p. 51) suggests democracy increases investment, encourages economic reforms, improves the provision of schooling and health care, and reduces social unrest. Democracies also seem to do better regarding longevity and health. Infant mortality has been found to be lower in democracies, democracies have been found to be better than autocracies at converting economic growth into calorie consumption for the poorest citizens, and democracies have been found to have less deaths from natural disasters than non-democracies (Harding & Wantchekon, 2010, pp. 22-23). the protection of human rights (Harding & Wantchekon, 2010; Christiano, 2011).

On the other hand, autocratic countries can mobilize resources and implement decisions quickly (Dziundziuk, 2024, p. 53). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, strict measures were introduced in China and Iran. Additionally, in response to the 2008 financial crisis, China implemented a large-scale economic stimulus plan (Dziundziuk, 2024, p. 51). However, this decisiveness is often accompanied by restrictions on civil liberties, media control and the suppression of opposition (Dziundziuk, 2024, p. 54).

In addition to those general perspectives, there have also been specific arguments in favor of democracy and autocracy in relation to the environment.

Theoretically, democracies may be better suited for environmental protection due to them valuing human life more; taking a broader, potentially longer-term view; being more responsive to society’s expressed concerns; being more accountable and open; and needing to supply more public goods, including environmental protection measures (Burnell, 2012, p. 823; Wurster, 2013, p. 80).

Some empirical work may support such a positive conception of democracy in relation to the environment. Carbonell and Allison (2015) have found that democracy is positively associated with compliance with international environmental treaties. Gholipour and Farzanegan (2018) have found that the degree to which institutions in Middle Eastern countries are democratic is positively associated with the effectiveness of expenditures on environmental protection. Farzanegan and Markwardt (2018) have found that democratization is beneficial for the environment in the Middle East and North Africa. Jahanger et al. (2022) have found that autocracy is linked to higher CO2 emissions, while democracy is linked to lower CO2 emissions. Kuntze and Fesenfeld (2021) have found that a citizen assembly can increase public support for climate policies. Lv (2017) has found that democracy reduces CO2 emissions if the country has reached a certain income level. Adams and Nsiah (2019) have found that more democratic countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are less likely to pollute the environment than less democratic countries. Lastly, Mavisakalyan et al. (2023, p. 49) have found that democratic countries present in the Arctic enact more stringent environmental policies, although democratic institutions were not found to independently impact environmental policy stringency.

However, there is also theoretical and empirical work out there which paints a more negative picture of democracy. Liberal democracy has been criticized for not institutionally representing all those affected by ecological risks (Eckersley, 2020, pp. 5–6). Traditionally, democratic systems are accountable to current citizens. They are not directly accountable to nonhuman species, nor to future generations (Eckersley, 2020, p. 7). This means that democratic rulers have no direct incentive to “deliver” for future generations and nonhuman species. Since future generations are more affected by climate change than current generations, and since democratic rulers are not accountable to nonhuman species, the way in which accountability functions in democracies may pose difficulties to democratic rulers in being incentivized to address climate change. Additionally, it has been found that democracies have difficulties in including future interests into their current decision-making processes (Wurster, 2013, p. 89). <— hier nog ff de rest vd tekst lezen    Democracy has also been found to be linked to a higher ecological footprint in studies on OECD countries (Ursavaş, 2022; Akalin and Erdoğan, 2021). Additionally, Midlarsky (1998) has found democracy to be positively linked with deforestation, carbon dioxide emissions and soil erosion by water. This has led some to consider a more autocratic form of governance regarding environmental problems.

It has been argued that autocracy is necessary for the survival of humanity in light of the climate crisis (Beeson, 2010, p. 289). According to some, it may be easier for autocracies to constrain environmentally damaging activities, because autocratic governments pay less attention to citizens’ rights (Neumayer, 2002, p. 6). The concept of “environmental authoritarianism”, which has been used to describe environmental policymaking in autocratic countries (Beeson, 2018; Gilley, 2012), is relevant here. Gilley (2012, p. 288) defines this model as the concentration of environmental authority in a few executive agencies manned by “capable and uncorrupt elites”, with public participation being limited to a “narrow cadre of scientific and technocratic elites”. There are usually some limits on individual freedom, such as in the form of limiting car usage (Gilley, 2012, p. 290). For example, in China, environmental NGOs are under strict administrative control, and they do not criticize the government (Lo, 2010, pp. 1014–1015). According to Shen (2024, p. 489), environmental policymaking can be more effective in autocracies due to a lower influence from societal interests. This is only the case if climate change is viewed as a high-priority issue and if climate policies are based on science (Shen, 2024, p. 491).

Autocratic governance also has ambiguous or negative effects, however. The lack of constraints on the executive in autocratic countries, making policy change easier, can be beneficial if existing policy is eco-unfriendly, but harmful if existing policy is eco-friendly (Von Stein, 2022, p. 345). Additionally, the implementation of policies can be more challenging due to informational challenges, partly due to insufficient alternative information channels beyond official sources (Shen, 2024, p. 490). Autocratic governments also tend to fail to address the root causes of problems. For instance, many autocratic governments were untransparent about cases of COVID-19 during the beginning of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, China engaged in significant repression after the outbreak of COVID-19 (Stasavage, 2020; Burkle, 2020). Additionally, in China, an autocratic country, the water is largely contaminated and the air quality is poor (Burkle, 2020). This suggests autocratic governments may have problems in effectively addressing structural environmental problems.

In order to explain contrasting findings between democracy and the environment, an inverted U-shaped curve, similar to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), has been proposed as a model. According to the EKC, environmental deterioration rises in early stages of economic development and reduces as the economy develops beyond a certain point (Buitenzorgy & Mol, 2011, pp. 60–61). Some studies have found evidence supporting this hypothesis (Cropper & Griffiths, 1994; Panayotou, 1993; Bhattarai & Hammig, 2001; Ehrhardt-Martinez et al., 2002).

Buitenzorgy and Mol (2011, p. 68) have found evidence of such a relationship existing between democracy and environmental deterioration as well. They have found that deforestation rates are relatively low in autocracies and mature democracies, while they are relatively high in semi-democracies or transitional countries. According to them, this may be the case due to the state being relatively weak in semi-democracies and civil society still being underdeveloped. In autocracies, the state can constrain citizens and companies from engaging in environmentally damaging activities, and in democracies, an active civil society has countervailing power. Mak Arvin and Lew (2011, p. 1159) have also found the Kuznets effect for deforestation in a few sub-samples, but an inverse Kuznets (i.e. a U-shaped) effect for CO2 emissions. Kim et al. (2018) have found that democracy is positively associated with the environment via elections, governments, institutions and cultures in high-income countries. For low-income countries, this positive association was only found via the functioning of the government. Lastly, Povitkina et al. (2015) have found that in low-income countries, democracy has a negative effect on marine ecosystems, while in high-income countries, it has a positive effect. It may be that institutions which are present in countries with a high level of economic development are necessary for “collective action, civil society, political culture, accountability, or other factors” which are necessary for sustainable development (Povitkina et al., 2015, p. 26). As such, sequencing may be necessary, which in this case refers to developing the rule of law and constitutional liberalism before democratizing (Povitkina et al., 2015, p. 26).

Importantly, we do not know to what extent autocratization affects climate policy. A recent study found no evidence for autocratization undermining climate policy choices and emissions (Bernauer & Böhmelt, 2025). However, as the authors of the study have acknowledged, their analysis centers on the adoption of climate policies, while not capturing their dismantling, weakening or termination. The study thus did not capture any potential gradual weakening of existing frameworks (Bernauer & Böhmelt, 2025, pp. 5–6). Relatedly, the authors have pointed out that the subtle or delayed consequences of autocratization for climate policy may have gone unnoticed, especially if they have unfolded gradually or through indirect channels (Bernauer & Böhmelt, 2025, p. 6).

This project can contribute to our understanding of the ways in which autocratization may affect climate policies by 

Literature

Acemoglu, D., Naidu, S., Restrepo, P., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). Democracy does cause growth. Journal of Political Economy, 127(1), 47–100. https://doi.org/10.1086/700936

Adams, S., & Nsiah, C. (2019). Reducing carbon dioxide emissions; Does renewable energy matter? Science of the Total Environment, 693, 133288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.094

Akalin, G., Erdoğan, S. (2021). Does democracy help reduce environmental degradation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 7226–7235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11096-1

Baptista, L. B., Schaeffer, R., Van Soest, H. L., Fragkos, P., Rochedo, P. R., Van Vuuren, D., Dewi, R. G., Iyer, G., Jiang, K., Kannavou, M., Macaluso, N., Oshiro, K., Park, C., Reedman, L. J., Safonov, G., Shekhar, S., Siagian, U., Surana, K., & Qimin, C. (2022). Good practice policies to bridge the emissions gap in key countries. Global Environmental Change, 73, 102472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102472

Beeson, M. (2010). The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environmental Politics, 19(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903576918

Bernauer, T., & Böhmelt, T. (2025). Does democratic backsliding undermine climate policy? No evidence (yet). iScience, 28(12), 114038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.114038

Bhattarai, M., & Hammig, M. (2001). Institutions and the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation: A Crosscountry Analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia. World Development, 29(6), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00019-5

Buitenzorgy, M., & Mol, A. P. J. (2011). Does Democracy Lead to a Better Environment? Deforestation and the Democratic Transition Peak. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9397-y

Burkle, F. M. (2020). Declining Public Health Protections within Autocratic Regimes: Impact on Global Public Health Security, Infectious Disease Outbreaks, Epidemics, and Pandemics. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 35(3), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X20000424

Burnell, P. (2012). Democracy, democratization and climate change: complex relationships. Democratization, 19(5), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2012.709684

Carbonell, J.R., Allison, J.E. (2015). Democracy and state environmental commitment to international environmental treaties. Int Environ Agreements, 15, 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9213-6

Christiano, T. (2011). An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39, 142-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01204.x

Cropper, M., & Griffiths, C. (1994). The Interaction of Population Growth and Environmental Quality. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 250–254. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117838

Dziundziuk, B. (2024). A comparative analysis of the impact of authoritarian and democratic political systems on addressing global challenges. Foreign Affairs, 34(6), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/6.2024.47

Eckersley, R. (2020). Ecological democracy and the rise and decline of liberal democracy: looking back, looking forward. Environmental Politics, 29(2), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1594536

Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Crenshaw, E. M., & Jenkins, J. C. (2002). Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A cross-national investigation of intervening mechanisms. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00080

Farzanegan, M. R., & Markwardt, G. (2018). Development and pollution in the Middle East and North Africa: Democracy matters. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(2), 350–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.010

Gholipour, H. F., & Farzanegan, M. R. (2018). Institutions and the effectiveness of expenditures on environmental protection: evidence from Middle Eastern countries. Constitutional Political Economy, 29, 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-017-9246-x

Gilley, B. (2012). Authoritarian environmentalism and China’s response to climate change. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.651904

Harding, R., & Wantchekon, L. (2010). The political economy of human development (Human Development Research Paper 2010/29). United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office. https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_29.pdf

Jahanger, A., Usman, M., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Autocracy, democracy, globalization, and environmental pollution in developing world: Fresh evidence from STIRPAT model. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), e2753. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2753

Kim, Y., Kim, S., Baek, J., & Heo, E. (2018). The linkages between democracy and the environment: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Energy & Environment, 30(5), 821-832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X18813637

Kuntze, L., & Fesenfeld, L. P. (2021). Citizen assemblies can enhance political feasibility of ambitious climate policies. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918532

Lo, A. Y. (2010). Active conflict or passive coherence? The political economy of climate change in China. Environmental Politics, 19(6), 1012–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2010.518689

Lv, Z. (2017). The effect of democracy on CO₂ emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 900–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.096

Mak Arvin, B., & Lew, B. (2011). Does democracy affect environmental quality in developing countries? Applied Economics, 43(9), 1151–1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840802600277

Mavisakalyan, A., Otrachshenko, V. & Popova, O. (2023). Does democracy protect the environment? The role of the Arctic Council. Climatic Change, 176(49). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03511-6

Midlarsky, M. I. (1998). Democracy and the Environment: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343398035003005

Neumayer, E. (2002). Do Democracies Exhibit Stronger International Environmental Commitment? A Cross-country Analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2), 139-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039002001

Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (WEP 2-22/Working Paper No. 238). International Labour Office. http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1993/93B09_31_engl.pdf

Povitkina, M., Jagers, S. C., Sjöstedt, M., & Sundström, A. (2015). Democracy, development and the marine environment – A global time-series investigation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 105, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.023

Shen, S. V. (2024). Can Autocracy Handle Climate Change? PS: Political Science & Politics, 57(4), 487–492. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652400026X

Stasavage, D. (2020). Democracy, Autocracy, and Emergency Threats: Lessons for COVID-19 From the Last Thousand Years. International Organization, 74(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00208183200003388

Ursavaş, N. (2022). The impact of democracy on environmental degradation in OECD countries. EKOIST: Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 37, 213–235. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1118226

Von Stein, J. (2022). Democracy, autocracy, and everything in between: how domestic institutions affect environmental protection. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000054X

Wurster, S. (2013). Comparing ecological sustainability in autocracies and democracies. Contemporary Politics, 19(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2013.773204