Advertisement

Multilateral energy lending and urban bias in autocracies: promoting fossil fuels

  • Sung Eun Kim
  • Johannes Urpelainen
Original Article
  • 198 Downloads

Abstract

Energy demand is growing rapidly across the world, and international funding agencies like the World Bank have responded by emphasizing energy in their project portfolios. Some of these projects promote the use of fossil fuels, while others support cleaner forms of energy. For climate change mitigation, it is important to understand how international funders decide on the choice between fossil fuels and cleaner sources of energy. Examining the energy funding portfolios of the nine most important international funders for the years 2008-2011, we show that funding for fossil fuels has been concentrated in highly urbanized autocracies. Due to economies of scale, fossil fuels are suitable for generating heat and electricity for densely populated urban areas. Autocratic rulers are subject to urban bias in their policy formulation because the support of concentrated urban constituencies is key to an autocrat’s political survival, and in democracies environmental constituencies can effectively oppose fossil fuel projects.

Keywords

Energy policy Fossil fuels Renewable energy Urbanization Political institutions Multilateral development banks 

References

  1. Aklin M, Urpelainen J (2013) Political competition, path dependence, and the strategy of sustainable energy transitions. Am J Political Sci 57(3):643–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assetto VJ, Hajba E, Mumme SP (2003) Democratization, decentralization, and local environmental policy capacity: Hungary and Mexico. Soc Sci J 40(2):249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barro RJ (1999) Determinants of democracy. J Political Econ 107(6):158–S183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates RH (1981) Markets and states in Africa: the political basis of agricultural policies. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates RH, Lien D-HD (1985) A note on taxation, development, and representative government. Polit Soc 14(1):53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bezemer D, Headey D (2008) Agriculture, development, and urban bias. World Dev 36(8):1342–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheibub JA, Gandhi J, Vreeland J (2010) Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice 143(1):67–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheon A, Urpelainen J, Lackner M (2013) Why do governments subsidize gasoline consumption? an empirical analysis of global gasoline prices, 2002-2009. Energy Policy 56: 382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen LR, Greene WH (1976) Economies of scale in U.S. electric power generation. J Political Econ 84(4):655–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diekmann A, Franzen A (1999) The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environ Behav 31(4):540–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geddes B (1999) What do we know about democratization after twenty years. Ann Rev Political Sci 2:115–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gelissen J (2007) Explaining popular support for environmental protection: a multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environ Behav 39(3):392–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halsnæs K, Verhagen J (2007) Development based climate change adaptation and mitigation: conceptual issues and lessons learned in studies in developing countries. Mitig Adaptat Strateg Glob Chang 12(5):665–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris JR, Todaro MP (1970) Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis. Am Econ Rev 60(1):126–142Google Scholar
  15. Hisnanick JJ, Kymn KO (1999) Modeling economies of scale: the case of us electric power companies. Energy Econ 21(3):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hochstetler K, Keck M E (2007) Greening Brazil: environmentalism in state and society. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Energy Agency (2011) World energy outlook, Paris, International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones DW (1991) How urbanization affects energy-use in developing countries. Energy Policy 19(7):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamalapur GD, Udaykumar RY (2011) Rural electrification in india and feasibility of photovoltaic solar home systems. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 33(3):594–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanase-Patil AB, Saini RP, Sharma MP (2010) Integrated renewable energy systems for off grid rural electrification of remote area. Renew Energy 35(6):1342–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keck ME, Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim SE, Urpelainen J (2013) International energy lending: who funds fossil fuels, who funds energy access for the poor. Int Environ Agreements 11(4):411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li Q, Reuveny R (2006) Democracy and environmental degradation. Int Stud Q 50(4):935–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lim JH, Tang S-Y (2002) Democratization and environmental policy-making in Korea. Gov 15(4):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipton M (1977) Why poor people stay poor: a study of urban bias in world development, London, Temple SmithGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakhooda S (2008) Correcting the world’s greatest market failure: climate change and the multilateral development banks. World resources instituteGoogle Scholar
  27. Neumayer E (2002) Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. J Peace Res 39(2):139–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ponce de Leon Barido D, Marshall JD (2014) Relationship between urbanization and CO2 emissions depends on income level and policy. Environ Sci Technol 48(7):3632–3639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ross ML (2012) The oil curse: how petroleum wealth shapes the development of nations. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Satterthwaite D (2009) The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change. Environ Urban 21(2):545–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seers D (1977) Indian bias. Soc Econ Stud 26(3): 372–387Google Scholar
  32. Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Urpelainen J (2013) Can strategic technology development improve climate cooperation? a game-theoretic analysis. Mitigc Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 18(6):785–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Varshney A (1993) Introduction: urban bias in perspective. J Dev Stud 29(4):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallace J (2011) Urban concentration, redistribution, & authoritarian resilience. SSRN Work Pap 27:2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations