The roots of environmental policy: determinants of parliamentarian behavior in the Brazilian National Congress
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7984.2025.e100264Keywords:
Environmental Policy, Congress, legislative behavior, Chamber of Deputies, SenateAbstract
This article aims to understand the factors that determine senators' behavior in the development and presentation of environmental legislation. To this end, a database was constructed comprising all environmental bills presented by the Brazilian Federal Senate from 1989 to 2018. The data were analyzed using logistic regression. Among other inquiries, we sought to determine which ideological component is more inclined to propose environmental legislation. The main findings of this article reveal a positive relationship between a left-leaning political stance and the proposal of bills aimed at strengthening environmental legislation. Additionally, we found no significant relationship between the degree of participation of the agricultural and mining sectors in the state economy and senators' legislative output, even in the presentation of "negative" proposals regarding the environment.
References
AASEN, M. The polarization of public concern about climate change in Norway. Climate Policy, v. 17, n. 2, p. 213–230, 17 fev. 2017.
ADUA, L. U.S. states initiation of energy efficiency policies in the era of climate change: Throwing a searchlight on the influence of political partisanship. Environmental Science & Policy, v. 115, p. 133–142, jan. 2021.
AGNONE, J. Amplifying Public Opinion: The Policy Impact of the U.S. Environmental Movement. Social Forces, v. 85, n. 4, p. 1593–1620, 1 jun. 2007.
ANDREWS, C. Public policy and the geography of U.S. environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 79(1), 55-73. Mar. 1998.
ARAÚJO, Paulo Magalhães. Câmara alta e bicameralismo no Brasil. Revista de Informação Legislativa. Brasília a. 47 n. 187 jul./set. 2010.
BARBOSA, W; ALBALA, A. Determinantes das políticas ambientais do Legislativo brasileiro: Uma perspectiva desde os Senadores. No prelo.
BARROS, Antonio Teixeira de. Política partidária e meio ambiente: a adesão dos partidos políticos brasileiros à agenda verde. Opinião Pública, v. 21, n. 3, p. 693-733, 2015.
BIRCH, S. Political polarization and environmental attitudes: a cross-national analysis. Environmental Politics, v. 29, n. 4, p. 697–718, 6 jun. 2020.
CANELLO, J.; BARBOSA, L. M. Mudanças Climáticas: o que diz o ranking de comportamento parlamentar. Observatório do Legislativo Brasileiro. 26 set. 2021.
CLERICI, P. Legislative Territorialization: The Impact of a Decentralized Party System on Individual Legislative Behavior in Argentina, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, V. 51, n. 1, pp. 104–13, 2021.
DUNLAP, R. E.; MCCRIGHT, A. M.; YAROSH, J. H. The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, v. 58, n. 5, p. 4–23, 2 set. 2016.
FAUCHER, Florence; BOY, Daniel. Fifty Shades of Green? Political differences between elites, members and supporters of Europe Ecologie Les Verts. Environmental Politics, v. 27, n. 1, p. 161-185, 2018.
FISHER, D. R.; WAGGLE, J.; LEIFELD, P. Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate. American Behavioral Scientist, v. 57, n. 1, p. 70–92, jan. 2013.
GERSHON, D.; MEIRELES, F.; BARBOSA, L. M. Mapa do Agronegócio no Congresso. Observatório do Legislativo Brasileiro. 13 ago. 2020.
HADLER, M.; WOHLKÖNIG, P. Environmental Behaviours in the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany between 1993 and 2010: Macro-Level Trends and Individual-Level Determinants Compared. Czech Sociological Review, v. 48, n. 3, p. 467–492, 1 jun. 2012.
HAIDT, Jonathan. A Mente Moralista: Por que pessoas boas são segregadas por política e religião. Alta Books, 2020.
HARDIN, G. The Tragedy of the Commons. v. 162, p. 7, 1968.
HARRING, N.; JAGERS, S.; MATTI, S. Public Support for Pro-Environmental Policy Measures: Examining the Impact of Personal Values and Ideology. Sustainability, v. 9, n. 5, p. 679, 25 abr. 2017.
HUSSAIN, A.; LABAND, D. N. The tragedy of the political commons: Evidence from U.S. Senate roll call votes on environmental legislation. Public Choice, v. 124, n. 3–4, p. 353–364, set. 2005.
JACOBSEN, G. D. Do economic conditions influence environmental policy? Evidence from the US Senate. Economics Letters, v. 120, n. 2, p. 167–170, ago. 2013.
JAGERS, S. C.; HARRING, N.; MATTI, S. Environmental management from left to right – on ideology, policy-specific beliefs and pro-environmental policy support. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 61, n. 1, p. 86–104, 2 jan. 2018.
JEONG, G. H.; LOWRY, W. The polarisation of energy policy in the us congress. Journal of public policy, p. 1–25, 18 jun. 2019.
KIM, S. E.; URPELAINEN, J. The Polarization of American Environmental Policy: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Senate and House Votes, 1971-2013: The Polarization of American Environmental Policy. Review of Policy Research, v. 34, n. 4, p. 456–484, jul. 2017.
LEWIS, G. B.; PALM, R.; FENG, B. Cross-national variation in determinants of climate change concern. Environmental Politics, v. 28, n. 5, p. 793–821, 29 jul. 2019.
LIST, John A.; STURM, Daniel M. How elections matter: Theory and evidence from environmental policy. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, v. 121, n. 4, p. 1249-1281, 2006.
LOCKWOOD, B, & LOCKWOOD, M. How Do Right-Wing Populist Parties Influence Climate and Renewable Energy Policies? Evidence from OECD Countries. Global Environmental Politics 22 (3): 12–37, 2022.
LONGO, B. C. et al. Influência da demografia sobre a consciência ambiental e consumo ecológico. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, v. 11, n. 4, p. 136, 20 out. 2017.
LYON, Thomas P.; YIN, Haitao. Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards?: An empirical investigation. The Energy Journal, v. 31, n. 3, 2010.
MALONEY, M.T., MCCORMICK, R.E. & TOLLISON, R.D. Economic regulation, competitive governments, and specialized resources. The Journal of Law and Economics, 27(2), 329– 338. out. 1984.
MARQUART-PYATT, S. T. Contextual influences on environmental concerns cross-nationally: A multilevel investigation. Social Science Research, v. 41, n. 5, p. 1085–1099, set. 2012.
MAYHEW, D. Congress: The Electoral Connection, Second Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
MAZUR, A.; WELCH, E. W. The geography of American environmentalism. Environmental Science & Policy, v. 2, n. 4–5, p. 389–396, ago. 1999.
MCCRIGHT, A. M. Political orientation moderates Americans’ beliefs and concern about climate change: An editorial comment. Climatic Change, v. 104, n. 2, p. 243–253, jan. 2011.
MCCRIGHT, A. M.; XIAO, C.; DUNLAP, R. E. Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Social Science Research, v. 48, p. 251–260, nov. 2014.
NEIVA, Pedro Robson Pereira. Os determinantes da existência e dos poderes das câmaras altas: federalismo ou presidencialismo?. Dados, v. 49, p. 269-299, 2006.
NEIVA, Pedro Robson Pereira. Coesão e disciplina partidária no Senado Federal. Dados, v. 54, p. 289-318, 2011.
NEIVA, Pedro Robson Pereira; SOARES, Márcia Miranda. Senado brasileiro: casa federativa ou partidária?. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais [online]. 2013, v. 28, n. 81.
NELSON, J. P. “Green” Voting and Ideology: Lcv Scores and Roll-Call Voting in The U.S. Senate, 1988 –1998. The Review of Economics and Statistics, p. 12, 2002.
POVITKINA, Marina. The limits of democracy in tackling climate change. Environmental Politics, v. 27, n. 3, p. 411-432, 2018.
REHLFELD, A. The Concept of Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
RUBIATTI, B. DE C. Sistema de resolução de conflitos e o papel do Senado como Câmara revisora no bicameralismo brasileiro. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, n. 23, p. 35–74, ago. 2017.
RYAN, D. Política y ambiente en la Argentina: ¿Un caso de baja politización?. Revista Estado y Políticas Públicas, nº 3, pp 22-32. 2014.
RYAN, D. Política y cambio climático: explorando la relación entre partidos políticos y la problemática climática en américa latina. Ambiente e Sociedade, São Paulo, v. 20, n. 3, p. 271-286, set. 2017.
SMITH, E. K.; MAYER, A. Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states. Climatic Change, v. 152, n. 1, p. 17–34, jan. 2019.
TELLMANN, S. M. The constrained influence of discourses: the case of Norwegian climate policy. Environmental Politics, v. 21, n. 5, p. 734–752, set. 2012.
VIOLA, Eduardo; FRANCHINI, Matías. Brasil na governança global do clima, 2005-2012: a luta entre conservadores e reformistas. Contexto internacional, v. 35, p. 43-76, 2013.
ZIEGLER, A. Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: An empirical cross-country analysis. Energy Economics, v. 63, p. 144–153, mar. 2017.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Wallace Bastos Barbosa, Adrian Albala
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and publishing rights to their works without restrictions.
By submitting their manuscripts, authors grant Revista Política & Sociedade the exclusive right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License. This license allows others to remix, adapt, and build upon the published work, provided that appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the original publication in this journal.
Authors are also permitted to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of their work in this journal (for example, depositing it in an institutional repository, posting it on a personal website, publishing translations, or including it as a book chapter), provided that authorship and the original publication in Revista Política & Sociedade are properly acknowledged.
