Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis

Jennifer E. Givens, Andrew K. Jorgenson ⇑Department of Sociology, University of Utah, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 June 2012Revised 4 October 2012Accepted 24 October 2012Available online 5 November 2012

Keywords:Environmental concernGlobalizationWorld polityWorld societyEnvironmental sociologySustainability

a b s t r a c t

The authors assess the extent to which national-level integration in the world polity influ-ences individual-level concern for the environment. While theoretically-derived proposi-tions about such relationships have a deep history in comparative sociology, they—withfew exceptions—remain untested. Consistent with past research, employed national-levelmeasures of world polity integration include the relative presence of environmental inter-national nongovernmental organizations (EINGOs) and the existence of environmentalministries. Results of multilevel analyses of individual-level environmental concern in 37nations indicate that both forms of world polity integration increase the likelihood of indi-vidual-level environmental concern, net of other national-level factors and individual-levelcharacteristics; although we find stronger support for the influence of EINGOs as a key var-iable indicating world polity connection. The findings provide unique support for worldpolity theory, suggesting that future research should consider how elements of world pol-ity integration influence other forms of individual attitudes and behaviors. The results alsohighlight the importance in considering global and transnational factors when assessingthe determinants of individual attitudes about the environment.

� 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Concern for the natural environment is increasing around the globe (Givens and Jorgenson, 2011; Mohai et al., 2010). Inthis study we consider the extent to which world polity integration affects such forms of environmental attitudes. Whileadding to the comparative sociological research on environmental concern (e.g., Dunlap and York, 2008; Hunter et al.,2004), this work makes broader contributions to world polity scholarship, one of the central traditions in the discipline asa whole (e.g., Buttel, 2000; Meyer, 2010).

World polity theory draws attention to the global cultural diffusion of accepted institutional structures and modes ofthinking; this global society emphasizes scientific understanding, rational progress, individualism and agency, universalism,and world citizenship (Boli and Thomas, 1997; Meyer et al., 1997a). Particular lines of research within the world polity tra-dition identify a world environmental regime that is both a carrier and result of the world polity (Longhofer and Schofer,2010; Frank et al., 2000a; Schofer and Granados, 2006; Meyer et al., 1997b). Frank et al. (2000b) describe the human/naturerelationship as progressing from one in which humans fear nature, to one in which humans use nature, to a newly emergingrelationship where nature is viewed as something that must be protected in order to sustain all life on the planet. This shift isconsistent with what environmental sociologists Catton and Dunlap have long advocated for: a change from the humanexemptionalism paradigm, in which humans see themselves as separate from nature, to a new ecological paradigm, in whichhumans see themselves as an influential part of the whole natural ecosystem (e.g., Catton and Dunlap, 1978; Dunlap, 2008;

0049-089X/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.005

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Sociology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530 East, Room 301, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, United States.Fax: +1 801 585 3784.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.E. Givens), [email protected] (A.K. Jorgenson).

Social Science Research 42 (2013) 418–431

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Social Science Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /ssresearch


Dunlap and Catton, 1979). The world polity’s emphasis on scientific understanding and rational thought frames the environ-ment as something to understand and protect, and humans are framed as having the ability and responsibility to act in thismanner, in order to achieve the universal goal of protecting the planet and its inhabitants.

We extend previous research on the world polity in the context of the world environmental regime by employing mul-tilevel analysis to test the theory at the individual level. We ask: does national-level connection to this regime extend downto affect individual environmental concern? Our focus on an individual-level outcome is consistent with foundational yetunderstudied propositions of the perspective. For example, Boli et al. (1985: 146) write about ‘‘the modern reconstructionof the individual’’ in the ‘‘rationalized’’ society and outline how a complex of modern institutions structure society in a ra-tional way right down to creating an individual’s actions and ideas. Also, Boli and Thomas (1997) underscore the significanceof attending to how world cultural principles shape the actions of culturally constituted actors, including individuals. Boyle’s(2002: 126) work on female genital cutting is a notable exception to the lack of analysis of individual level outcomes; sheexplains, ‘‘one key empirical factor, then, that links macro and micro-levels is the exposure of these individuals to the pow-erful scripts embedded in the international system.’’ The findings of our study of individual environmental concern in 37nations highlight the importance of considering broader contextual factors as formative of individual-level outcomes.

2. World polity theory

A key insight of world polity theory concerns the construction of the nation-state as an institution in world society.According to this perspective, the nation-state is formed by cultural and associational processes at the global level and isunderstood as a product of global culture. Understanding the formation of nation-states as entities formed by the institution-alization of exogenously formed structures, rather than as structures created to meet domestic needs, helps explain thestructural isomorphism of nation-states despite quite different levels of status in the world economy (e.g., Cole, 2005; Meyeret al., 1997a) or other national level variation such as religious, geographical, or historic differences. Buttel (2000) notes thatthe insights regarding global cultural homogenization and social structural/organizational isomorphism are some of themost valuable aspects of world polity theory. For example, scholars note both the presence of ministries of environmentalprotection in quite disparate states with different needs and the varying degrees of effectiveness of these ministries (Franket al., 2000a).1 In addition, world polity theory also views the nation-state as constructed as a rational actor (Meyer et al.,1997a) with culturally acceptable goals that include increasing welfare and equality for individuals (Meyer, 2007).

Understanding the nation-state in this way has parallels to understanding the construction of the individual in the worldpolity. Like the nation-state, the individual is constructed by the world polity as a rational actor with culturally constructedgoals. Both are created in line with the basic principles of the world cultural system, ‘‘universalism, individualism, rationalvoluntaristic authority, human purposes of rationalizing progress, and world citizenship’’ (Boli and Thomas, 1997: 171).

Within the world polity literature, international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) are seen as both products of andimportant carriers of the world polity, and scholars note their rapid proliferation during the time period that also corre-sponds to the growth of global culture. Boli and Thomas (1997: 173) write, ‘‘INGOs shape the frames that orient other actors,including states’’ to which we would add, ‘‘and individuals.’’ In other words, INGOs are characterized as carriers of worldculture who diffuse progressive global models that are adopted by local collective and individual actors (Clark, 2008). Otherdominant actors in the world polity include states, transnational corporations, and intergovernmental organizations. Whilethese other entities have military, economic, and political power, INGOs may be seen as powerless in comparison; this is inpart what makes their influence so interesting. Rather than influence based in power, their influence is based in expertauthority and a commitment to the common good. INGOs have as their primary function promoting the cultural ideasand goals of the world polity; the principles that drive INGOs are the basic principles of the broader world cultural system(Boli and Thomas, 1997). Meyer et al. (1997b) argue that world society, through various associational streams, including IN-GOs, draws attention to issues such that we recognize them as problems if necessary and act on them. These observations areapplicable to environmental impacts of human activities as well as collective and individual concerns about the natural envi-ronment. Keck and Sikkink (1998) add that in addition to raising awareness of issues and framing them as problems neces-sitating action, INGOs legitimate and motivate collective action, increase citizen involvement, engage in the production,exchange, and strategic use of information, lobby governments and international organizations, bring pressure for change,especially on target actors, monitor compliance with national and international standards, change perceptions of interestand lead to new norm creation, create networks from the domestic to the international, and give voice to the marginalized.Boyle (2002: 153) notes that NGOs may be ‘‘less predictable’’ and more ‘‘radical’’ than nation states.

While world polity theory suggests that the establishment of certain isomorphic state structures, such as ministries, maybe enacted to legitimate a state and to make it fit within the world polity’s discourse (Meyer et al., 1997a), the establishmentof a ministry also grants state recognition, legitimacy, and funding to an issue. Further, the ministry is a target actor withinthe state that can be pressured by and can network with INGOs, and the ministry may engage in international level nego-tiations. Frank et al. (2011: 557) classify ministries as receptor sites that ‘‘decode signals from world society and transmit

1 It is not only in the state, it is also in society that this homology is seen; empirical studies also provide evidence of it in other areas, such as in elements ofmass education, or environmental education at the university level, despite drastically differing educational needs and general national circumstances (Boliet al. 1985; Frank et al., 2011; Frank and Meyer 2007; Schofer and Meyer 2005).

J.E. Givens, A.K. Jorgenson / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 418–431 419


them to domestic actors.’’ Through these mechanisms both INGOs and state ministries may impact individual worldviewsand concern.

3. World polity and the environment

Research on society/environment relationships offers valuable opportunities for testing propositions of world polity the-ory. The expansion of world environmental organization among both state and non-state actors is labeled by world polityscholars as the ‘‘world environmental regime’’ (e.g., Frank et al., 2000a). Additionally, Meyer et al. (1997b) point out that be-cause state and economic interests came relatively late to the issue, environmental INGOs (EINGOs) have played a major rolein the creation of global environmental concern and mobilization. They also note the impact of world-level organizationsputting environmental issues on their agendas, and they highlight the importance of the world polity in creating and extend-ing a ‘‘rationalized and authoritative scientific interpretation, which structures perceptions of common environmental prob-lems’’ (Meyer et al., 1997b: 623). Thus, the world polity shapes perception and response to environmental conditions at theglobal, international–organizational, state, local–organizational, and individual levels. One causal mechanism proposed byMeyer et al. (1997b) is that the world polity affects how people perceive the issue, thus leading to increases in concern.2

In other words, individual-level concern is shaped by global-level forces of the world polity and its framing of the issues in ratio-nalized and scientific contexts.

The most well-known strand of research on world polity and the environment focuses on the emergence of EINGOs aswell as other civil society organizations and state agencies throughout the world (e.g., Frank et al., 2000a; Longhofer andSchofer, 2010; Smith and Wiest, 2005). Buttel (2000) questions the viability of world society theory and the likelihood thatglobal civil society actions can overcome the possible barriers of global and international structural inequities. Nonetheless,Buttel also notes that scholars working in this tradition have shown that environmental sociology needs to pay attention tothe emergence and potential impacts of EINGOs, environmental ministries, and other relevant factors as components of theemergent world environmental regime in comparative perspective.

In response to Buttel’s critique, Frank et al. (2000b: 123) argue that while they do not directly assess the environmentaland social impacts of world society integration, they (i.e., Frank et al.) speculate that there is likely some sort of a beneficialrelationship—even if the relationship is uneven within and between nations: ‘‘a pockmarked system is better than no systemat all’’. Further, Schofer and Hironaka (2005) argue that when EINGOs and other world polity components are persistent, theyare much more likely to have a noticeable impact. We suggest such impacts, in addition to being in the form of improve-ments in actual environmental conditions, could also be found in shifts in individual and collective worldviews about soci-ety/nature relationships. Consistent with the former, recent strands of comparative-international research find evidence thatworld society connections in the context of a stronger presence of EINGOs and the establishment of national environmentalministries mitigate the harmful environmental impacts of foreign direct investment, a form of world-economic integration,in less-developed countries (Jorgenson et al., 2011; Jorgenson, 2009). Other strands of cross-national research suggests that astronger presence of EINGOs directly aids in slowing deforestation (Shandra et al., 2010a; Shandra, 2007a,b) and biodiversityloss (Shandra et al., 2010b, 2009).

Many case studies highlight this role of EINGOs in raising awareness and understanding of environmental issues. Gouldet al. (1996: 5) in an analysis of social movements note the ‘‘widespread social belief that advances in public welfare areachieved primarily through economic growth’’ and see the role of EINGOs in these struggles as raising awareness of the prob-lem this increasingly transnational logic poses for sustaining natural systems. They describe a case of wetlands protection inthe US in which causes and actors larger than the local level impact the environment. Gould et al. (1996) conclude that actionto combat degradation also needs to be transnational and that EINGOs play a role in global framing of issues to increaseawareness and in making transnational linkages to combat transnational forces and their locally situated outcomes. Pellow(2007) builds on Gould et al. (1996) in an analysis of global movements to resist global toxins, emphasizing the role of a keyEINGO, Greenpeace International, in raising awareness of the global nature of environmental problems. Princen et al. (1995)state the role of INGOs in the international arena is not the same as the role of groups that lobby and raise public awarenessin the domestic arena, but instead indicates a global phenomenon attributable to the failure of traditional politics to addressthe growing global ecological crisis. Scholars from the world polity perspective, however, would caution that ecological deg-radation has been occurring for a long time and thus the response cannot be seen as a solely functional response to increas-ing urgency of problems (Meyer et al., 1997b). Groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and Friends of the Earth,among others, are part of a global civil society that not only aims to influence state behavior but also disseminates an eco-logical sensibility; use of various forms of media plays a key role in these efforts and studies show a significant increase inconcern about the environment (Wapner, 1995). Wapner (1995) provides the example of Canadian seal pup hunting, whichhad been conducted without much controversy until several EINGOs including Greenpeace became involved in a campaignof protecting the seals and raising awareness through direct action covered by the media, which led to increasing consumerawareness of the practice, boycotts of the pelts, and ultimately international legislation limiting trade of the seal products.Similarly, the depletion of whaling stocks was acknowledged by the scientific community but efforts to raise citizen concern

2 The identification of the role of EINGOs as both an outcome of and carrier of the world polity and an entity that transcends nation-state agendas informs ourstudy.

420 J.E. Givens, A.K. Jorgenson / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 418–431


did not take off until environmental organizations became involved and motivated citizen concern which ultimately led toregulation at the international level (Betsill and Corell, 2008). These examples are illustrative of the key role EINGOs play inthe international transmission of world-polity information and framing that is linked to increased environmental concern.

Boli et al. (1985) write about ‘‘the modern reconstruction of the individual’’ in the ‘‘rationalized’’ society (146) and con-sider how a complex of modern institutions (e.g., INGOs) structure society in a rational way right down to creating an indi-vidual’s actions and ideas. And others, such as Boli and Thomas (1997), draw attention to how world cultural principlesshape the values and actions of individuals. In other words, these earlier works in the world polity literature generally arguethat transnational civil society organizations—i.e., INGOs—as well as other components of the world polity can potentiallyinfluence the worldviews and perhaps the behaviors of individual actors, especially in situations where the presence of IN-GOs and other relevant groups and institutions (i.e., national offices or ministries) are relatively stronger and more estab-lished.3 While these propositions seem foundational to the world polity perspective in general and work in the tradition onthe environment in particular, they remain untested empirical questions. Further, scholars of environmental values and concernin comparative perspective argue that sociological research on such attitudes need to consider the potential role that globalassociational and institutional factors, such as EINGOs and the environmental commitments of nation-states, play in shapingindividual attitudes about the environment (e.g., Brechin, 1999; Dunlap and York, 2008; Givens and Jorgenson, 2011).4

In the subsequent analyses we attempt to help resolve the above limitations of past world polity research and to expandthe sociological understanding of the construction of environmental concern as a part of the world environmental regime. Todo so we employ multilevel modeling techniques and appropriate measurements to examine the extent to which individual-level environmental concern in nations throughout the world are associated with a stronger presence of EINGOs and theexistence of environmental ministries. Both, which are country-level measures, are well-established indicators of connec-tions to the world polity (e.g., Frank et al., 2000a; Jorgenson, 2009; Schofer and Hironaka, 2005). Prior to the analyses, weprovide a brief summary of the sociological research on environmental attitudes.

4. Prior sociological research on environmental attitudes: a brief summary

Research on the determinants of environmental attitudes has a broad and deep history in environmental sociology andinspires ongoing debate (Brechin, 2010), and despite acknowledging that many environmentally consequential behaviors arestrongly influenced by factors outside of an individual’s control (Dietz et al., 2005), research also links concern to behaviorthat has significant environmental impacts (Stern, 2000; Dietz et al., 2005). Two common theoretical approaches to the studyof environmental concern relate to affluence and exposure to degradation. The affluence explanation is connected to a largertheory of post-materialist values, developed by Inglehart (1977, 1990), which in part explains environmental concern as ahigher order need which people attend to once their material needs are met; meeting basic needs is increasingly possiblewith the rise of industrial development and welfare states, thus higher levels of affluence are associated with environmentalconcern. The affluence explanation is in line with another contemporary perspective in sociology, ecological modernizationtheory, which sees development and modernization as creating opportunities for both reduced environmental harm and in-creased environmental concern. Development is viewed as a necessary step in providing the governments and citizens ofnations the funds and resources to have concern for and take action to protect the environment (e.g., Spaargaren andMol, 1992; Zahran et al., 2007; see also Jorgenson and Clark, 2012).

Other studies, however, find inconsistent correlations between affluence and environmental concern (e.g., Dunlap andYork, 2008; Knight and Messer, 2012) or note environmental concern in areas that have not experienced the affluence-basedpost materialist values shift (Dunlap and Mertig, 1997). In these less affluent areas the objective problems subjective valuestheory identifies exposure to degradation as the cause of concern (Brechin, 1999; Inglehart, 1995). Although these relatedtheories are quite limited since they explain environmental concern differently in the Global North versus Global South, theydo not diminish the importance of looking at affluence and exposure to degradation as determinants of environmental valuesat both national and individual levels. For example, in a recent multi-level study of individuals in 38 nations, Givens andJorgenson (2011) find support for the affluence hypothesis at the individual level but not at the national level, and they findqualified support for the exposure to degradation hypotheses at both levels of analysis.

More broadly, previous research on environmental concern takes a variety of approaches. Some look at individual-leveldeterminants of environmental concern (e.g., Chatterjee, 2008; Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997; Torgler and Garcia-Valinas,2007), others compare aggregate national levels of environmentalism (e.g., Brechin, 1999; Dunlap and York, 2008; Duroy,2008; Franzen, 2003; Inglehart, 1995;), and less frequently, studies examine a combination of the two (e.g., Gelissen,2007; Givens and Jorgenson, 2011; Haller and Hadler, 2008; Hadler and Haller, 2011; Marquart-Pyatt, 2007, 2008). In addi-tion to affluence and degradation (Inglehart, 1995; Kidd and Lee, 1997; Gelissen, 2007; Jahn, 1998), prior strands of inquiryconsistently suggest a number of individual-level factors that partially shape environmental attitudes, including level of edu-cation and age (Torgler and Garcia-Valinas, 2007), health status (Auyero and Swistun, 2009; Davis, 2002), and gender(Blocker and Eckberg, 1997; Dietz et al., 2002; Hayes, 2001; Hunter et al., 2004). Givens and Jorgenson (2011) find that at

3 And such arguments, in the context of EINGOs and environmental ministries, exist in the burgeoning literature on world polity and the environment (e.g.,Frank et al., 2000b; Jorgenson et al., 2011; Schofer and Hironaka, 2005; Shandra, 2007a,b).

4 Brechin (1999) finds global environmental concern in the Global South and goes on to encourage a more nuanced approach to global environmentalism thatincludes international relationships and influences.



the individual level, exposure to degradation, class, education, age, health, and gender all influence levels of environmentalconcern. Thus, in the subsequent analysis we include these factors in our baseline individual-level model.

5. The analysis

We employ multilevel modeling techniques to assess the extent to which individual-level environmental concern is asso-ciated with a stronger connection to the world polity at the national level in the context of the existence of an environmentalministry and the relative presence of EINGOs. More specifically, we estimate and report hierarchical generalized logit ran-dom intercept models (HGLM) using HLM 6.0 software (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush et al., 2004).5 Such meth-ods are quite appropriate since the employed dependent variable is binary in measurement. Other recent analyses ofenvironmental concern employ the same model estimation techniques for analogous reasons (e.g., Givens and Jorgenson, 2011).

5.1. Data

The individual-level data are from the fifth wave (i.e., the 2005 wave) of the World Values Surveys (WVS) and consist ofrepresentative samples from 37 countries for the year 2005 (see Table 1). The 2005 wave of the WVS allows us to examineenvironmental values across a range of individuals in a variety of national situations that are all exposed to the world polityat varying degrees. The fifth wave provides coverage of a greater number of less affluent countries than other survey instru-ments that include questions about the environment and the WVS provides comparable results across countries.

Country-level data are from various sources and are described in detail below for each of these measures. All country-levelvariables are for the year 2000, while individual-level variables are for 2005 to allow a time lag for attitude formation. Because

Table 1Countries included in the analyses.

Country Percent ‘‘more’’ environmental concern

1. Argentina 60.252. Australia 54.983. Brazil 78.594. Bulgaria 48.835. Burkina Faso 62.476. Chile 55.997. China 67.728. Cyprus 66.289. Egypt 62.8110. Ethiopia 49.4611. Finland 63.3412. Germany 39.4713. Ghana 77.2314. India 63.3015. Indonesia 74.8916. Japan 28.7317. Jordan 82.6418. Malaysia 41.0819. Mali 73.7220. Moldova 50.6321. Morocco 58.4322. Peru 53.0223. Poland 66.0224. Romania 44.4525. Rwanda 59.4226. South Africa 55.0427. South Korea 32.6728. Slovenia 71.4829. Sweden 52.8930. Switzerland 67.0431. Thailand 40.8032. Trinidad and Tobago 67.4033. Turkey 78.1134. Ukraine 36.7335. USA 40.9536. Vietnam 58.7237. Zambia 51.46

Total N = 37 57.69

5 Since the employed dependent variable is binary, we use the Bernoulli outcome option in HLM 6 and the HLM logit model.



of data availability limitations, particularly for the individual-level measures, we are unable to employ a multi-level longitu-dinal analysis that more effectively infers and assesses causal relationships. While this study makes noteworthy substantivecontributions and employs data at multiple levels, we recognize the limitations that come with such a temporally staticapproach.

Given the focus of the study, after describing the dependent variable, we first describe the country-level world politymeasures and country-level control variables, followed by the individual-level control variables.

5.2. Dependent variable

The fifth wave of the WVS includes a survey question that captures the concept of environmental concern particularly well,thus we use responses to this single question as our dependent variable. The question asks respondents to read brief descrip-tions of people and indicate whether the person is like them or not like them on a six point scale. The pertinent descriptionreads: ‘‘looking after the environment is important to this person; to care for nature.’’ While no question is flawless, this par-ticular question closely captures environmental concern and we choose to use a single question response as our dependentvariable for clarity of interpretations. We recode the above question as a binary outcome of the two highest categories (codedas one) versus the four lowest (coded as zero). We use these data to create a binary measure for conceptual reasons.6 In re-sponse to the survey question that we derive our dependent variable from, respondents are asked to rate themselves on a scalefrom one to six where the choices read, ‘‘not at all like me, not like me, a little like me, somewhat like me, like me, and very muchlike me.’’ Conceptually, we are interested in the dichotomy between those who say they are not so concerned versus those whosay they are concerned. Further, the two categories of least concern have low levels of respondents, and dividing the four leastconcerned categories from the top two categories yields two groups with approximately equal numbers of respondents.7 Otherpublished research employs the same binary outcome for analogous reasons (Givens and Jorgenson, 2011).8

Table 1 lists the countries included in the analyses as well as the percent of the respondents surveyed in each respectivecountry expressing ‘‘more’’ environmental concern, while Fig. 1 provides a country-level scatterplot illustrating the bivariaterelationship between this aggregate measure of environmental concern and EINGOs weighted by population, the latter ofwhich we describe below. The correlation coefficient for the two measures in Fig. 1 is .206.

5.3. Country-level world polity measures

We employ a newly constructed measure of EINGO presence, which consists of a nation-state’s number of ties to or chap-ters of 25 such organizations, randomly sampled from the population of all EINGOs.9 The United States, for example, had 14such ties in 2000, while Chile had 7 and Ethiopia had 3. These data come from the Union of International Associations’ (UIA)2007 Yearbook of International Organizations. INGOs are treated here as environmental (i.e., EINGOs) if their main goal is envi-ronmental protection (based on ‘‘environment’’ entries in subject indices in the UIA yearbook), and not mainly agriculture, ani-mal welfare, or natural science. These data, which are an update to the prior EINGO measures used by Frank et al. (2000a) andothers (e.g., Schofer and Hironaka, 2005), are employed in other recent comparative-international research (Frank et al., 2011).Consistent with various cross-national studies that treat INGOs as a predictor (e.g., Jorgenson, 2009; Shandra et al., 2009) or anoutcome (Smith and Wiest, 2005), we divide the EINGO counts by the total population of nations (measured in millions), thelatter of which we obtain from the World Bank (2010). Such a measure captures the relative presence of EINGOs in a given na-tion, and more broadly, relative levels of world polity integration (e.g., Jorgenson et al., 2011).

Using the EINGO data, we test the following hypothesis: The level of environmental concern at the individual level is higher innations with a relatively greater presence of EINGOs. EINGOs both raise awareness of environmentalism and link local or na-tional environmental concern to global environmental discourse. EINGOs represent the diffusion of world polity awareness

6 Nonetheless, when we estimate models where the dependent variable is the ordinal variable (with values ranging from one to six), results are substantivelyconsistent with the reported findings.

7 Percentages of respondents in a country falling in the ‘‘more environmental’’ category range from 29% in Japan to 83% in Jordan; the average across thecountries is 58% ‘‘more environmental’’. Potential reasons for relatively lower responses in some nations could be attributed to (1) issues of climate changedenial and stigmatization of environmentalism, (2) whose responsibility a respondent thinks it is to look after the environment, or (3) issues of individualempowerment or individual consumption. Nonetheless, like others who use it (e.g., Givens and Jorgenson, 2011), we believe the employed dependent variableeffectively measures concern for the natural environment.

8 We use one survey question as our dependent variable, which is commonplace in prior research (e.g., Givens and Jorgenson, 2011; Hayes, 2001; Knight andMesser, 2012). Using such measures of environmental concern provides new insights into variation in results depending on what question or what combinationof questions is used. This is in line with Brechin (2010) who notes contrasts in measures of environmental variables; for example China’s citizens expressrelatively less concern about climate change compared to citizens in other nations, but relatively more willingness to support policies to fight climate change;Brechin challenges that we must try to explain these contrasts. While some have successfully used composite measures of environmental concern (e.g.,Marquart-Pyatt, 2007, 2008; Haller and Hadler, 2008), we choose not to use an index that combines multiple measures. Further, some of the other measures ofenvironmental concern in the WVS are not highly correlated with our dependent variable question, or with each other. This is in line with the findings ofDunlap and York (2008) who conduct analyses on both single and composite dependent variables, and who note the lack of correlation between some variablesthat measure environmental concern. For example, in these data the dependent variable has a correlation of .08–.09 with measures of environmentalorganization membership, a correlation of .13–.18 with willingness to pay measures, and a correlation of .13 with a question that asks respondents to choosebetween economic growth and the environment.

9 We thank David John Frank for generously sharing these EINGO data with us.



of environmental issues, and the construction of nature as something to be concerned about and actively cared for by indi-viduals. We expect that with the diffusion of global environmentalism we will see more environmental concern within coun-tries with more EINGOs and thus stronger connections to the world polity and the global construction of environmentalism.

The presence of an environmental ministry is our second world polity variable. More specifically, these data, which areemployed in various cross-national studies (e.g., Dick, 2010; Schofer and Granados, 2006), are a dummy-coded measure ofenvironmental ministry presence, which indicates if a nation-state has a national environmental, conservation, or ecologyministry (coded as 1). Twenty-five of the thirty-seven countries in our sample had a ministry in 2000. These data were pre-viously gathered and analyzed by Frank et al. (2000a) and Meyer et al. (1997b), and the former generously shared them withthe second author of the current study. For specific details on the coding of these data, we refer the reader to their respectivepublications. With these data, we test the following hypothesis: The level of environmental concern at the individual level ishigher in nations with a national environmental ministry. States often adopt a ministry as part of the top down diffusion ofthe world polity and its constitutive influence on nation-states. The presence of an environmental ministry serves as an indi-cator of connection to the world polity. While having an environmental ministry in some ways legitimates a nation-state, astate environmental ministry also further legitimates the idea of environmental protection in the eyes of the citizens.

5.4. Country-level control variables

Country-level control variables here can be seen to represent competing hypotheses related to affluence, exposure to deg-radation, and world economic integration. We control for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in constant 2000 US dol-lars, logged to minimize its positively skewed distribution. These data as well as the other country-level control variables areobtained from the World Bank (2010). GDP per capita is a standard measure for level of economic development and/or afflu-ence, and is a common predictor in prior comparative analyses of environmental concern (e.g., Dunlap and York, 2008). Inline with previous studies (e.g., Givens and Jorgenson, 2011), but contra both the postmaterialist values hypothesis and eco-logical modernization theory, we hypothesize that individual environmental concern will on average be lower in more eco-nomically developed nations. This challenges the conventional wisdom that caring about the environment is a luxury (for anexcellent review of this debate regarding affluence and concern see Dunlap and York, 2008). Furthermore, while more afflu-ent countries have larger consumption-based environmental impacts, countries at a certain level of affluence are more ableto externalize their environmental costs to less developed nations, as is suggested by the theory of ecologically unequal ex-change (Jorgenson, 2006; Jorgenson and Clark, 2009). This may lead to lower levels of concern in more affluent countries.

We include anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in metric tons per capita, logged to normalize its positivelyskewed distribution. The CO2 measure represents the mass of carbon dioxide per person produced during the combustion

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

1213

1415

16

1718 19

20

2122

2324

25

2627

28

29

30

31

32

3334 35 36

37

0.5

11.5

22.5

EINGOs

30 40 50 60 70 80Concern

Fig. 1. Scatterplot of countries included in the analyses.



of solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels, as well as from gas flaring and the manufacture of cement. The World Bank gathers thesedata from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division, at the Oak Ridge National Lab-oratory. Consistent with other studies of environmental concern (e.g., Givens and Jorgenson, 2011), we treat these data as acountry-level measure of environmental degradation, and hypothesize that individual environmental concern will be higherin nations with higher levels of degradation at the country level.

We include exports of goods and services as a percent of GDP as a general measure of world-economic integration. Com-parative-international research suggests that this form of world-economic integration contributes to various environmentalproblems, including growth in greenhouse gas emissions and industrial water pollution (e.g., Jorgenson, 2009; Roberts andParks, 2007). Others highlight the importance in considering how different kinds of global and international relationshipsshape individual attitudes (e.g., Brechin, 1999), and controlling for world-economic integration allows for more valid assess-ments of the influence of world polity factors on macro-level and micro-level outcomes (Smith and Wiest, 2005).

5.5. Individual-level control variables

Based on our literature review of environmental values in general and recent multilevel analyses of environmental con-cern in particular, we identified several individual-level determinants of environmental values that warrant inclusion in ouranalysis. These predictors—as a group—serve as our baseline individual-level model.

At the individual level we control for exposure to local degradation based on a question asking respondents how seriouspoor air quality is in their community. This is recoded as binary comparing the bottom three categories (coded zero) to thetop, most serious category (coded one), which contains 41% of the respondents.

We include class as a 5 category ordinal (rank ordered) variable (coded zero to four), which is based on a survey questionin which respondents described themselves as lower, working, lower middle, upper middle, or upper class.10

We control for education as a one to four ordinal (rank ordered) variable: less than complete primary schooling, completeprimary schooling and less than complete secondary schooling, complete secondary schooling, and some university or more(coded zero to three).11

We control for age as a continuous variable in the reported analyses, and in unreported analyses we transform age into anordinal variable, which results in substantively identical results.

Table 2Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics.

1 2 3 4 5

Level 2 variables N = 371. GDP pc (ln) 12. CO2 pc (ln) 0.851 13. Exports goods and services/GDP 0.093 0.284 14. EINGOS/population 0.490 0.394 0.346 15. Environmental ministry 0.009 �0.012 0.155 �0.019 1

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Level 1 variables N = 48,2406. Dependent variable 17. Exposure to air pollution 0.101 18. Class 0.028 �0.020 19. Education �0.026 �0.055 0.389 110. Female 0.000 0.012 �0.004 �0.064 111. Age 0.043 �0.076 �0.005 �0.158 �0.022 112. Health 0.020 �0.010 0.179 0.175 �0.046 �0.243 1

Mean Std. Dev. Skew Min Max N

Level 2 variables N = 371. GDP pc (ln) 7.822 1.697 0.014 4.828 10.513 372. CO2 pc (ln) 0.860 1.617 �0.954 �2.996 3.012 373. Exports goods and services/GDP 35.145 22.562 1.402 8.710 119.810 374. EINGOS/population 0.423 0.679 1.909 0.000 2.543 375. Environmental ministry 0.676 0.475 �0.751 0.000 1.000 37

Level 1 variables N = 48,2406. Dependent variable 0.582 0.493 �0.331 0 1 516837. Exposure to air pollution 0.436 0.496 0.260 0 1 523448. Class 1.591 1.018 0.022 0 4 507079. Education 1.510 1.003 �0.064 0 3 5295510. Female 0.522 0.500 �0.088 0 1 5332011. Age 41.248 16.434 0.520 15 97 5316012. Health 0.682 0.466 �0.780 0 1 53138

10 Results of sensitivity analysis using dummy variables for class yield results that are substantively consistent with the reported findings.11 Results of sensitivity analysis using dummy variables for education yield results that are substantively consistent with the reported findings.



We control for health based on a self reported survey question that is recoded as binary where 69% of respondents are inthe good health category (coded as 1) versus the fair to very poor range (coded as zero).

Finally, we control for gender, where male respondents are assigned a value of zero and female respondents are assigneda value of one. We allow all level one variables to vary randomly except for sex, which is fixed.12

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the individual-level and country-level variables are provided inTable 2.13

Table 3HGLM models of environmental concern in 37 countries (N = 48,240; coefficients, odds ratios, and t-ratios displayed).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Country levelGDP per capita (ln) �0.277* �0.267* �0.287** �0.279*

0.758* 0.766* 0.751** 0.756*

�2.719 �2.417 �2.880 �2.602

CO2 per capita (ln) 0.056 0.085 0.060 0.0911.057 1.089 1.062 1.0950.507 0.764 0.558 0.845

Exports/GDP �0.006 �0.008(*) �0.007(*) �0.009*

0.994 0.992(*) 0.993(*) 0.991*

�1.469 �1.858 �1.727 �2.179

EINGOs/population 0.387* 0.411*

1.472* 1.509*

2.466 2.697

Environmental ministry 0.300 0.329(*)

1.350 1.390(*)

1.683 1.890

Individual levelAir pollution a problem 0.378*** 0.376*** 0.377*** 0.376*** 0.378***

1.459*** 1.456*** 1.458*** 1.457*** 1.459***

8.704 8.693 8.730 8.688 8.731

Class 0.051* 0.050* 0.051* 0.051* 0.051*

1.052* 1.052* 1.052* 1.052* 1.052*

2.636 2.612 2.622 2.622 2.631

Education 0.047* 0.048* 0.048* 0.048* 0.048*

1.048* 1.049* 1.049* 1.049* 1.049*

2.325 2.367 2.364 2.368 2.358

Age 0.014*** 0.014*** 0.014*** 0.014*** 0.014***

1.014*** 1.014*** 1.014*** 1.014*** 1.014***

9.085 9.105 9.097 9.105 9.087

Health 0.100* 0.099* 0.101* 0.099* 0.101*

1.105* 1.104* 1.106* 1.104* 1.106*

2.593 2.544 2.603 2.540 2.598

Female 0.045* 0.045* 0.045* 0.045* 0.045*

1.046* 1.046* 1.046* 1.046* 1.046*

2.265 2.280 2.265 2.284 2.264

Intercept �0.631*** 1.702* 1.509(*) 1.611* 1.412*

0.532*** 5.486* 4.523(*) 5.008* 4.103*

�4.603 2.182 1.797 2.114 1.742

Notes: line one: coefficient, flagged for statistical significance; line two: odds ratio, flagged for statistical significance; line three: t-ratio.* p < .05 two tailed test.

** p < .01 two tailed test.*** p < .001 two tailed test.(*) Significant one tailed .05 test.

12 In multilevel modeling coefficients must be designated as fixed or random (Raudenbush et al., 2004). Setting coefficients as fixed frees up degrees offreedom and makes it more likely that we will find statistical significance/make a type one error. We are conservative in regard to all level one variables exceptfor sex; we allow all level one variables to vary randomly except for sex, which is fixed; we base this decision on both methodological and substantive reasons,because we have all levels of sex represented in our study and because sex is likely to be measured without error, and chi-square tests are significant for alllevel one variables, indicating they could all be allowed to vary randomly, however, sex is the closest to non-significance and has the lowest unexplainedvariance. This model design matches Givens and Jorgenson (2011).

13 In additional analyses available upon request we tested several interaction terms, including a level two interaction between GDP per capita and EINGOs andcross-level interactions between EINGOs and individual-level exposure to degradation and between EINGOs and individual class position. The estimated effectsof all interaction terms were nonsignificant, with the exception of the cross-level interaction between EINGOs and individual-level exposure to degradation,which proved to be positive and significant and points to fruitful avenues for future research. We note that the null findings for all of the other modeledinteractions could be at least partially due to multicollinearity and/or the relatively small sample size at level 2 (see Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002).



6. Results

The results of the multilevel analysis are presented in Table 3. Model 1 is the level one model with individual-level pre-dictors, based on previous findings in the literature (e.g., Givens and Jorgenson, 2011) and is the standard baseline model towhich we add level two predictors. Based on the results from Model 1, at the individual level, or level one, saying air pol-lution was a serious problem in the community, ranking oneself as in a higher class, having more education, being older,being healthier, and being female all increase the log odds of a respondent expressing concern for the environment. Sayingthat air pollution is a significant problem in the community increases an individual’s log odds by 46%. A one unit increase inclass category increases the log odds by 5%. A one unit increase in educational category increases the log odds by about 5%,every year of age increases the log odds by about 1%, ranking oneself as healthy increases the log odds by 10%, and womenhad 5% higher log odds than men of being in the more environmentally concerned group. These results are stable across all ofthe estimated models.

Once the level one model has been specified, each successive model continues to control for the individual-level effects aswell as additional country-level predictors. We focus on the random intercept model, which gives us the country-level coef-ficients, and we report results from the unit-specific model.14 Model 2 represents our baseline model for both level one andlevel two predictors, the latter of which includes GDP per capita, CO2 per capita, and exports as percent of GDP. We introduceEINGOs weighted by population size in Model 3, while Model 4 includes our measure of environmental ministry presence aswell as the level one and level two baseline predictors. Model 5 is our most fully saturated of the reported model estimations,and includes both world polity measures as well as the level one and level two baseline predictors.

Overall, the results of interest confirm both hypotheses and thus lend support to world polity theory. Individuals fromnations with greater national-level connections to the world polity have a greater likelihood of expressing environmentalconcern, which can be interpreted as espousing attitudes in line with and constructed in the world polity. More specifically,the estimated effect of the number of EINGOs divided by population is positive and statistically significant. In line with theassertion that individual values are partially constructed at the global level in the world polity, this finding supports hypoth-esis one, that the level of individual environmental concern is higher in nations with a relatively greater presence of EINGOs.Likewise, the coefficient for the presence of an environmental ministry is positive and statistically significant at the onetailed level in the saturated model, providing some qualified support for hypothesis two and indicating that this national-level link to the world polity also partially influences individual-level environmental concern. We now briefly summarizethe effects of our three national-level control variables.

Our first national-level control variable is GDP per capita. In this series of models the effect of GDP per capita is consis-tently negative and statistically significant. This indicates that higher levels of national-level economic development corre-spond with a decrease in the likelihood of an individual respondent espousing environmental values. Although we do findsupport for an association between affluence and concern at the individual level, at the national level, the result, which is incontradiction with the arguments of ecological modernization theory and the affluence/post-materialist values perspective,is indeed consistent with the findings of previous research (Gelissen, 2007; Givens and Jorgenson, 2011; Dunlap and Mertig,1997). The coefficient for CO2 emissions per capita—our second country-level control variable—is positive but nonsignificantacross the models. This is possibly due to its high collinearity with GDP per capita. The two variables are positively correlatedat .85 (see Table 2). However, like others we include it in the models as an important macro-level control for environmentaldegradation.15 The coefficient for our third country-level control, exports of goods and services as a percent of GDP, is negativeand significant in the most fully saturated model. This indicates that the likelihood of an individual expressing environmentalconcern is lower in nations with higher levels of at least one form of world-economic integration.

7. Discussion and conclusion

Discussions and applications of world polity theory and the world environmental regime are often at the level of the na-tion-state (e.g., Frank et al., 2000a,b; Jorgenson et al., 2011; Longhofer and Schofer, 2010; Shandra et al., 2009) or other pow-erful institutions and organizations, such as universities (e.g., Frank et al., 2011). Our study extends support for the proposedexistence of a world society that is also constitutive of individuals. Previous research finds the existence of a global environ-mental regime; our multi-level analysis indicates that this global regime shapes attitudes at the individual level. Individualsfrom nations with more connections to the world polity—in the context of EINGO prevalence and environmental ministrypresence—are more likely to express environmental concern in line with the world polity and the global environmental re-gime. In other words, our results provide unique support for world polity theory. Just as nation-states are constructed asentities responsible for protecting nature, individuals are also constructed in the world polity as rational, agentic entitieswith personal responsibility and ability to protect the natural environment. The world polity presents the environment asan interconnected global ecosystem that is life-sustaining but increasingly threatened, and therefore it is rational for indi-viduals to protect it. These individuals are constructed in the world polity as actors with agency who have the ability to

14 The unit specific model is most appropriate for hypothesis testing (Allison, 2009), however results from the unit specific and population-average models aresubstantively the same.

15 When CO2PC is dropped from the models the results are substantively the same; the main difference in the saturated model for example is that GDPPCremains negative but is now significant at the .001 level.



use scientific understanding to act on the rational need to protect this life-sustaining natural environment and who have theresponsibility as world citizens to work for progress on such universal goals.

This study also contributes to research on environmental concern. Our results highlight the importance of the global envi-ronmental regime, identified by world polity theory, and the impact global environmental culture has on individual values.While we find evidence of the relevance of many factors discussed in previous research on environmental attitudes, such asindividual affluence, education, health, age, gender, and exposure to degradation, our results also show the importance ofattending to the way the global environmental regime shapes individual environmental concern. We find evidence of theseglobal cultural forces in the values individuals espouse regarding protecting the environment. Thus, research on environ-mental values moving forward would benefit from considering these broader contextual factors.

In terms of competing hypothesis regarding national-level influences, we find environmental concern to be lower in na-tions with higher levels of economic development, contra the post materialist values hypothesis, but consistent with recentsociological research (Gelissen, 2007; Givens and Jorgenson, 2011; Dunlap and Mertig, 1997; Dunlap and York, 2008). Whilenot the focus of this study, this finding also challenges the propositions of ecological modernization theory (e.g., Spaargarenand Mol, 1992), which considers economic development as necessary to create space for and efficacy of environmental con-cern. The effect of our country-level environmental degradation measure is non-significant, but its inclusion allows for morevalid testing of our study’s key hypotheses. Lastly, we find that world economic integration in the context of exports as per-cent total GDP has the opposite effect of world polity integration. Given the importance placed on accounting for world eco-nomic integration when testing propositions derived from world polity theory (e.g., Jorgenson et al., 2011), this strengthensour key findings, as both world polity integration measures and world economy integration in the context of relative level ofexports have significant yet opposite impacts in the final model. It also points to specific directions for future research, whichwe highlight below.

Our study has several noteworthy limitations. First, due to lack of adequate data available at the individual-level, our esti-mated multi-level models are cross sectional.16 A second related limitation is the possibility of reverse causality. However, ourresults are consistent with the propositions of the tested theory, and we employ a time lag between the key macro-level pre-dictors and the micro-level outcome to try to remedy these limitations as best we can.17 While not the focus of our study, a thirdlimitation is with our national-level environmental degradation variable. Using carbon dioxide emissions per capita does notentirely capture the myriad forms of environmental degradation that exist, and it is highly correlated with GDP per capita.Nonetheless, this is one of the most reliable and thus common measures of environmental degradation in cross-national socio-logical research (e.g., Jorgenson and Clark, 2010, 2012; Schofer and Hironaka, 2005).18 Regardless of such limitations, our studyquite effectively tests the effects of links to the world polity and world environmental regime, represented by EINGOs and envi-ronmental ministries, on the outcome of environmental concern, and in doing so we find support for the theory at the individuallevel. While the state is often seen as a dominant political organization and legitimate actor for social change (Buttel, 2000;Frank et al., 2000a), the individual too is constructed in world society as a rational agentic actor that can work for change.

We envision multiple next steps for this research agenda. First, it is quite possible that world polity factors and processescould influence other individual-level outcomes, including attitudes about other issues such as human rights and immigra-tion. The World Values Surveys as well as other sources of data allow for assessing such individual-level outcomes in multi-level modeling formats, and data are available for appropriate world polity measures, including INGOs focused on such is-sues; we plan to explore these sorts of research projects. Second, in the context of environmental attitudes, we plan to builddirectly on this work and assess if and the extent to which other forms of structural integration at macro levels partiallyshape environmental concern at the micro-level. For example, in the current study we included relative level of exports, acommon measure of world economic integration, and found it to have a negative effect on environmental concern at theindividual level. However, rapidly emerging areas of scholarship in environmental sociology and its sister disciplines focuson how more nuanced forms of world economic integration impact the environment in comparative perspective, includingthe structure of international trade as a form of ecologically unequal exchange (e.g., Jorgenson and Clark, 2009; Hornborg,

16 Data for our dependent variable are only available for the employed wave of the WVS; also, countries included in the WVS are different from one wave tothe next.

17 Following a reviewer suggestion we also conducted analyses in which we controlled at the individual level for membership in environmental organizationsusing two variables (in two separate models). In one we controlled for non-membership versus membership and in another we controlled for non-membershipor non-active membership versus active membership. Being a member of an environmental group and being an active member of an environmental group areboth significant at the .001 level and are logically associated with a higher likelihood of an individual expressing concern about the environment. Furthermore,the results of all other variables are substantively similar when controlling for either of these two variables at the individual level. Specifically, regarding ourkey country level variables of interest, the presence of EINGOs remains positive and significant in both models and the presence of an environmental ministryremains significant at the one tailed level in the model controlling for active versus non-active and non-membership. While our data does not allow us toanalyze whether increased concern caused people to join environmental organizations or to become more active in those organizations, the addition of thisvariable at the individual level does lend qualified support to the idea the reviewer suggested that EINGOs are significant in shaping the values of the broaderpublic, whether they are environmentally active or not.

18 In additional unreported analyses we attempted to include alternative measures of country-level degradation, such as measures of industrial waterpollution, methane emissions, and other greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. However, this was not possible because of missing country level data forthese measures; HLM will not allow missing data at level 2 (and above), and dropping countries due to missing data would significantly reduce anddramatically change the composition of our sample. We did try a measure of deforestation (which is available for all nations in the sample), calculated usingdata from the World Bank, average annual percent change in natural forest area, in line with Jorgenson (2008) and Shandra et al. (2010a); results were similarto reported models, with a positive but non-significant effect of country level deforestation rates on the individual level outcome.



2009; Rice, 2007) and the transnational organization of production in the context of foreign direct investment in the second-ary and primary sectors (Jorgenson et al., 2007; Jorgenson and Kuykendall, 2008). In these bodies of research, the environ-mental impacts of the more nuanced forms of world economic integration tend to be relatively larger than the more generaltypes, including relative levels of exports. Since there is mounting evidence that these more specific forms of structural eco-nomic integration impact the environment in various ways, it seems reasonable to consider the extent to which they mightalso influence individual-level environmental concern. These are important research questions, which we plan to pursue inthe near future.

In summary, world polity theory provides an important contribution to our understanding of the ways in which globalsociety shapes all levels of social life, including at the individual level. Coupled with past work (e.g., Frank et al., 2000a;Meyer et al., 1997b; Jorgenson et al., 2011; Schofer and Hironaka, 2005; Shandra, 2007a), this research indicates that theworld polity approach is especially relevant for scholarship on society/environment relationships. Furthermore, the ideaand awareness of a global ecosystem is becoming stronger. While the awareness of a global ecosystem as life sustainingmay be constructed by the world polity, that the planet does indeed constitute a global ecosystem is a reality that makesawareness of a global culture regarding protection of the environment all the more meaningful. Whether or not EINGOsand concerned citizens have enough ability to counter other forces, such as economic, that are detrimental to the healthof our environment remains to be seen. However, this paper provides evidence that world polity theory sheds light onthe globalization of environmental concern, and such results have important practical implications for global civil society.The world environmental regime has potential to partially shape environmental concern at the micro-level, which in turncan lead to pressures from below for governments to more seriously commit to actions and regulatory mechanisms thatforce economic organizations and other groups to lessen their environmental harms.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the reviewers and editor of Social Science Research as well as Wade Cole for helpful suggestions on aprior draft. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Associ-ation, Denver, Colorado.

References

Allison, Paul, 2009. Fixed Effects Regression Models. Sage, Thousand Oaks.Auyero, Javier, Swistun, Debora Alejandra, 2009. Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. Oxford University Press, New York.Betsill, Michele M., Corell, Elisabeth (Eds.), 2008. NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental

Negotiations. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Blocker, T. Jean, Eckberg, Douglas Lee, 1997. Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly 78 (4),

841–858.Boli, John, Thomas, George M., 1997. World culture in the world polity: a century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological

Review 62 (2), 171–190.Boli, John, Ramirez, Francisco O., Meyer, John W., 1985. Explaining the origins and expansion of mass education. Comparative Education Review 29 (2), 145–

170.Boyle, Elizabeth Heger, 2002. Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Brechin, Steven, 1999. Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a new

explanation. Social Science Quarterly 80 (4), 793–809.Brechin, Steven, 2010. Public opinion: a cross-national view. In: Lever-Tracy, Constance (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society.

Routledge, New York.Buttel, Frederick H., 2000. World society, the nation-state, and environmental protection: comment on Frank, Hironaka, and Schofer. American Sociological

Review 65 (1), 117–121.Catton, William R., Dunlap, Riley E., 1978. Environmental sociology: a new paradigm. American Sociologist 13, 41–49.Chatterjee, Deba Prashad, 2008. Oriental disadvantage versus occidental exuberance. Appraising environmental concern in India – a case study in local

context. International Sociology 23 (5), 4–33.Clark, Rob, 2008. Dependency, network integration, and development. Sociological Perspectives 51, 629–648.Cole, Wade, 2005. Sovereignty relinquished? Explaining commitment to the international human rights covenants, 1966–1999. American Sociological

Review 70, 472–495.Davis, Devra, 2002. When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution. Basic Books, New York.Dick, Christopher, 2010. Do environmental characteristics influence foreign direct investment growth? A cross national study, 1990–2000. International

Journal of Comparative Sociology 51, 192–210.Dietz, Thomas, Kalof, Linda, Stern, Paul, 2002. Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly 83 (1), 353–364.Dietz, Thomas, Fitzgerald, Amy, Showm, Rachael, 2005. Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 335–372.Dunlap, Riley E., 2008. Promoting a paradigm change: reflections on early contributions to environmental sociology. Organization and Environment 21,

478–487.Dunlap, Riley E., Catton Jr., William R., 1979. Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 5, 243–273.Dunlap, Riley, Mertig, Angela, 1997. Global environmental concern: an anomaly for postmaterialism. Social Science Quarterly 78 (1), 24–29.Dunlap, Riley E., York, Richard, 2008. The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: evidence from

four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly 49, 529–563.Duroy, Quentin M.H., 2008. Testing the affluence hypothesis: a cross-cultural analysis of the determinants of environmental action. The Social Science

Journal 45, 419–439.Frank, David John, Meyer, John W., 2007. University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory and Society 36, 278–311.Frank, David John, Hironaka, Ann, Schofer, Evan, 2000a. The nation-state and the natural environment over the twentieth century. American Sociological

Review 65 (1), 96–116.Frank, David John, Hironaka, Ann, Schofer, Evan, 2000b. Environmentalism as a global institution: reply to Buttel. American Sociological Review 65 (1), 122–

127.



Frank, David John, Robinson, Karen, Olesen, Jared, 2011. The global expansion of environmental education in universities. Comparative Education Review55, 546–573.

Franzen, Axel, 2003. Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly 84 (2),297–308.

Gelissen, John, 2007. Explaining popular support for environmental protection: a multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior 39, 392–415.Givens, Jennifer E., Jorgenson, Andrew K., 2011. The effects of affluence, economic development, and environmental degradation on environmental concern:

a multilevel analysis. Organization & Environment 24, 74–91.Gould, Kenneth A., Schnaiberg, Allan, Weinberg, Adam S., 1996. Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production. Cambridge

University Press.Guha, Ramachandra, Martinez-Alier, Joan, 1997. Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South. Earthscan, London, England.Hadler, Markus, Haller, Max, 2011. Global activism and nationally driven recycling: the influence of world society and national contexts on public and

private environmental behavior. International Sociology 26 (3), 315.Haller, Max, Hadler, Markus, 2008. Dispositions to act in favor of the environment: fatalism and readiness to make sacrifices in a cross-national perspective.

Sociological Forum 23 (2), 281–311.Hayes, Bernadette C., 2001. Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: a cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly 54

(3), 657–671.Hornborg, Alf, 2009. Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-

system. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50, 237–262.Hunter, Lori M., Hatch, Alison, Johnson, Aaron, 2004. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly 85 (3), 677–694.Inglehart, Ronald, 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Inglehart, Ronald, 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Inglehart, Ronald, 1995. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics

8 (1), 57–72.Jahn, Detlef, 1998. Environmental performance and policy regimes: explaining variations in 18 OECD-countries. Policy Sciences 31, 107–131.Jorgenson, Andrew K., 2006. Unequal ecological exchange and environmental degradation: a theoretical proposition and cross-national study of

deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociology 71 (4), 685–712.Jorgenson, Andrew K., 2008. Structural integration and the trees: an analysis of deforestation in less-developed countries, 1990–2005. Sociological Quarterly

49, 503–527.Jorgenson, Andrew K., 2009. Foreign direct investment and the environment, the mitigating influence of institutional and civil society factors, and

relationships between industrial pollution and human health: a panel study of less-developed countries. Organization and Environment 22, 135–157.Jorgenson, Andrew K., Clark, Brett, 2009. The economy, military, and ecologically unequal relationships in comparative perspective: a panel study of the

ecological footprints of nations, 1975–2000. Social Problems 56, 621–646.Jorgenson, Andrew K., Clark, Brett, 2010. Assessing the temporal stability of the population/environment relationship: a cross-national panel study of

carbon dioxide emissions, 1960–2005. Population and Environment 32, 27–41.Jorgenson, Andrew.K., Clark, Brett., 2012. Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative international study, 1960–2005. American

Journal of Sociology 118, 1–44.Jorgenson, Andrew K., Kuykendall, Kennon, 2008. Globalization, foreign investment dependence, and agriculture production: a cross-national study of

pesticide and fertilizer use intensity in less-developed countries, 1990–2000. Social Forces 87, 529–560.Jorgenson, Andrew K., Dick, Christopher, Mahutga, Matthew, 2007. Foreign investment dependence and the environment: an ecostructural approach. Social

Problems 54, 371–394.Jorgenson, Andrew K., Dick, Christopher, Shandra, John M., 2011. World economy, world society, and environmental harms in less-developed countries.

Sociological Inquiry 81 (1), 53–87.Keck, Margaret.E., Kathryn, Sikkink., 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Kidd, Quentin, Lee, Aie-Rie, 1997. Postmaterialist values and the environment: a critique and reappraisal. Social Science Quarterly 78 (1), 1–15.Knight, Kyle W., Messer, Benjamin L., 2012. Environmental concern in cross-national perspective: the effects of affluence, environmental degradation, and

world society. Social Science Quarterly 93, 521–537.Longhofer, Wesley, Schofer, Evan, 2010. National and global origins of environmental association. American Sociological Review 75, 505–533.Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T., 2007. Concern for the environment among general publics: a cross-national study. Society and Natural Resources 20, 883–898.Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T., 2008. Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrialized countries. Social Science Quarterly 89,

1312–1335.Meyer, John W., 2007. Globalization: theory and trends. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48, 261–273.Meyer, John W., 2010. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology 36, 1–20.Meyer, John W., Boli, John, Thomas, George M., Ramirez, Francisco O., 1997a. World-society and the nation-state. The American Journal of Sociology 103 (1),

144–181.Meyer, John W., Frank, David John, Hironaka, Ann, Schofer, Evan, Tuma, Nancy Brandon, 1997b. The structuring of a world environmental regime, 1870–

1990. International Organization 51 (4), 623–651.Mohai, Paul, Simões, Solange, Brechin, Steven R., 2010. Environmental concerns, values and meanings in the Beijing and Detroit metropolitan areas.

International Sociology 25 (6), 778–817.Pellow, David Naguib, 2007. Resisting Global Toxins: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Princen, Thomas, Finger, Matthias, Manno, Jack, 1995. Nongovernmental organizations in world environmental politics. International Environmental Affairs

7 (1), 42–58.Raudenbush, Stephen W., Bryk, Anthony S., 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, second ed. Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks.Raudenbush, Stephen W., Bryk, Anthony, Cheong, Yuk Fai, Congdon, Richard, du Toit, Mathilda, 2004. HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling.

Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood.Rice, James, 2007. Ecological unequal exchange: international trade and uneven utilization of environmental space in the world system. Social Forces 85,

1369–1392.Roberts, J. Timmons, Parks, Bradley C., 2007. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North–South Politics, and Climate Policy. The MIT Press, Cambridge.Schofer, Evan, Granados, Francisco J., 2006. Environmentalism, globalization and national economies, 1980–2000. Social Forces 85 (2), 965–991.Schofer, Evan, Hironaka, Ann, 2005. The effects of world society on environmental protection outcomes. Social Forces 84 (1), 25–47.Schofer, Evan, Meyer, John W., 2005. The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review 70 (6), 898–920.Shandra, John M., 2007a. The world polity and deforestation: a quantitative, cross-national analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48, 5–

27.Shandra, John M., 2007b. International nongovernmental organizations and deforestation: good, bad, or irrelevant? Social Science Quarterly 88 (3), 665–

689.Shandra, John M., Leckband, Christopher, McKinney, Laura, London, Bruce, 2009. Ecologically unequal exchange, world polity, and biodiversity loss.

International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50, 285–310.Shandra, John M., Shircliff, Eric, London, Bruce, 2010a. The international monetary fund, world bank, and structural adjustment: a cross-national analysis of

forest loss. Social Science Research 40, 210–225.



Shandra, John M., McKinney, Laura, Leckband, Christopher, London, Bruce, 2010b. Debt, structural adjustment, and biodiversity loss: a cross-nationalanalysis of threatened mammals and birds. Human Ecology Review 17 (1), 18–33.

Smith, Jackie, Wiest, Dawn, 2005. The uneven geography of global civil society: national and global influences on transnational associations. Social Forces 84(2), 621–652.

Spaargaren, Gert, Mol, Arthur P.J., 1992. Sociology, environment, and modernity: ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Society and NaturalResources 5, 323–344.

Stern, Paul C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 407–424.Torgler, Benno, Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. The determinants of individuals’ attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecological Economics

63 (2–3), 536–552.UIA (Union of International Associations), 2007. Yearbook of International Organizations. K.G. Saur Verlag, Brussels.Wapner, Paul, 1995. Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics 47 (3), 311–340.World Bank, 2010. World Development Indicators. <www.worldbank.org>.World Values Survey, 2005. Official Data File v. 20090901, 2009. World Values Survey Association. <www.worldvaluessurvey.org>.Zahran, Sammy, Kim, Eunyi, Chen, Xi, Lubell, Mark, 2007. Ecological development and global climate change: a cross-national study of Kyoto protocol

ratification. Society and Natural Resources 20, 37–55.


Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis

Documents

Transcript of Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis