Democracy & Deforestation

Is autocracy better for the planet?

• Share/Bookmark

Printer Friendly Permalink   Text Size  

It’s a long-running debate in certain circles: Does having the ballot benefit the bees and the butterflies? Or would a dictator do a better job of protecting the environment? Now, two researchers throw a new view into the mix with a study of the links between democracy and deforestation.

“The field of deforestation has proven to be a scientific battleground” in the democracy-environment debate, researchers Meilanie Buitenzorgy of Bogor Agricultural University in Indonesia and Arthur P.J. Mol of Wageningen University in The Netherlands report in Environmental and Resource Economics. Some studies have found that societies that vote for their leaders do a better job of protecting forests, while others have suggested that autocrats are better able to “constrain environmentally damaging economic activities as well as population growth.”

To see if they could sort things out, the two researchers assembled and compared an array of information about 177 nations, including statistics on deforestation, education levels and income. Although they concede that “democracy is not an easy variable to measure,” they found that a ranking system known at the Polity Index was up to the task. Then, to get to the heart of the matter, they compared a nation’s Polity score to its rate of deforestation, and graphed the results.

The result was a curve shaped like an inverted “U.” It showed that young or struggling democracies have the worst rates of deforestation, and as nations become more democratic, they do a better job of protecting forests. The study also suggested, however, that “deforestation rates would be relatively low under autocracy or mature democracy.” But, in general, the authors argue that more democracy appears to be better for the trees.

Why do struggling democracies fell trees at alarming rates? It may be that the combination of “a weakening state with a still immature civil society” results in the kind of chaos that makes it impossible to enforce environmental laws and constrain logging. As democracies mature, however, “an active civil society develops countervailing power” through things transparency, media coverage and activist groups. The study’s main message, the authors write, is that while economic and social factors play a role in environmental destruction, “governance regimes matter.” – David Malakoff | December 15, 2010 

Source: Buitenzorgy, M., & P. J. Mol, A. (2010). Does Democracy Lead to a Better Environment? Deforestation and the Democratic Transition Peak. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48 (1), 59-70 DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9397-y

Image © thesuperph