Leaders background, environmental policy and quality of environment: evidence from some developing countries
https://doi.org/10.25587/2587-8778-2025-2-5-24
Abstract
This study employs a quasi-experimental methodology, utilizing two-stage residuals regression, propensity score matching (PSM), and difference-in-differences (DiD) techniques to examine the relationship between the leader’s background, environmental policy, and environmental performance in some 55 developing countries. The analysis is based on a sample of 189 presidents from 1995 to 2018. The findings of this study demonstrate that the leader’s educational and professional background exhibits global variations in estimation techniques, yet the results from environmental policies remain consistent. The results indicate that a leader’s background is not a significant factor in environmental performance; rather, environmental response is positively influenced by their actions.
About the Authors
F. L. Nono Tchonang
University of Yaoundé 2
Cameroon
Cameroon
Nono Tchonang Floriane Leslie ‒ PhD student in economics
Yaoundé
J. H. Nlom
University of Douala
Cameroon
Cameroon
Nlom Jean Hugues − Phd in Economics, associate Professor of Economics, member of the Cameroonian Society of Agrégés in the Domain of Economics, the Faculty of Economics and management
Ebolowa
References
1. Besley T., Montalvo J.G., Reynal-Querol M. Do educated leaders matter? The Economic Journal. 2011;121(554):F205–227.
2. Biscotti A.M., D’Amico E. What are political leaders’ environmental intentions? The impact of social identification processes and macro-economic conditions. Ecological Economics. 2016;129:152–160.
3. Chattopadhyay R., Duflo E. Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica. 2004;72(5):1409–1443.
4. Chutel, L. From teacher to oppressor: Robert Mugabe’s rise and fall. Quartz. Available at: https://qz.com/1131354/from-teacher-to-oppressor-robert-mugabes-riseand-fall (accessed: 08 December 2017).
5. Dahlum S., Knutsen C.H. Do Democracies Provide Better Education? Revisiting the Democracy–Human Capital Link. World Development. 2017;94:186–199. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.00
6. Donald S.G., Lang K. Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel data. The review of Economics and Statistics. 2007;89(2):221–233.
7. Horowitz M.C., Stam A.C. How prior military experience influences the future militarized behavior of leaders. International Organization. 2014;68(3):527–559.
8. IPCC (2020). Rapport spécial sur les conséquences d’un réchauffement planétaire de 1,5 °C au-dessus des niveaux préindustriels.
9. Kamieniecki S. Corporate Environmentalism and Government Policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 2006;8(2);147–163.
10. Lafferty W.M., MeadowcroftJ. Confronting Sustainable Development: The Question of Integration. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 2000;2(3):179–194.
11. Moran V., Bia M., Thill P., et al. The impact of patient registration on utilisation and quality of care: a propensity score matching and staggered difference-in-differences analysis of a cohort of 16,775 people with type 2 diabetes. BMC primary care. 2024:25(1):254.
12. Neumayer E. Are Left-Wing Party Strength and Corporatism Good for the Environment? Evidence from Panel Data. Ecological Economics. 2003;45(2):203–220.
13. Rozenberg J., Fay M. (Eds.). Beyond the gap: How countries can afford the infrastructure they need while protecting the planet. World Bank Publications, 2019.
14. Sancino A., Sicilia M., Grossi G. Between patronage and good governance: Organizational arrangements in (local) public appointment processes. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2018;84(4):785–802.
15. Schultz T. Some observations on the allocation of resources in hight education. Université de Chicago, “Investment in man” (1960) (1959).
16. Schwab K. The global competitiveness report 2018. In: World Economic Forum. 2018; Vol. 671.
17. Staiger D., Stock J.H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica. 1997;65(3):557–586.
18. Sen A. Development as freedom. Oxford University Press; 1999.
19. Shleifer A. State versus private ownership. Journal of economic perspectives. 1998;12(4):133–150.
20. SINAC. Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. 2020.
21. Solidarity T. You want quality education? Try paying teachers. 2016.
22. Staiger D., Stock J.H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica. 1997;65(3):557–586.
23. Staiger D., Stock J.H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica. 1997;65(3):557–586.
24. Stasavage D. Democracy and Education Spending in Africa. American Journal of Political Science. 2005;49(2):343. doi:10.2307/3647681
25. Svaleryd H. Women’s representation and public spending. European Journal of Political Economy. 2009;25(2):186–198.
26. Tadadjeu S., Ningaye P., Njangang H. Are natural resources also bad for infrastructure quality? Journal of International Development. 2023;35(6):1053–1079.
27. Taghizadeh-Hesary F., Sarker T., Yoshino N., et al. Quality infrastructure and natural disaster resiliency: A panel analysis of Asia and the Pacific. Economic Analysis and Policy. 2021;69:394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.12.021
Review
For citations:
Nono Tchonang F., Nlom J. Leaders background, environmental policy and quality of environment: evidence from some developing countries. Economy and nature management in the North. 2025;(2):5-24. https://doi.org/10.25587/2587-8778-2025-2-5-24
Views:
57
Email this article 