IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v20y2015i06p813-835_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democratization, environmental and income inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Policardo, Laura

Abstract

If the demand for environmental goods is increasing with income, democratization shifts the decisive power from a rich autocrat to a poorer individual (decisive voter), so it should be associated with worse environmental conditions. In this paper, it is shown through a theoretical model that: (i) democratization may have mixed effects on the level of environmental quality, depending on the size of the price and income effects on the demand for environmental quality associated with a decrease in the decisive political actor's wealth; and (ii) assuming that society is composed of two classes of individuals with different levels of exposure to pollution, and assuming moreover that the decisive voter belongs to the most exposed class of individuals while the autocrat does not, democratization is beneficial for the environment, and the better the effect on the environment, the bigger the difference in wealth between the two decisive political actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Policardo, Laura, 2015. "Democratization, environmental and income inequality," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(6), pages 813-835, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:20:y:2015:i:06:p:813-835_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X15000029/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Busra Agan & Mehmet Balcilar, 2022. "On the Determinants of Green Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Analysis of Economic, Social, Political, and Environmental Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-23, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:20:y:2015:i:06:p:813-835_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.