Political leadership has limited impact on fossil fuel taxes and subsidies.

For countries to rapidly decarbonize, they need strong leadership, according to both academic studies and popular accounts. But leadership is difficult to measure, and its importance is unclear. We use original data to investigate the role of presidents, prime ministers, and monarchs in 155 countries from 1990 to 2015 in changing their countries' gasoline taxes and subsidies. Our findings suggest that the impact of leaders on fossil fuel taxes and subsidies is surprisingly limited and often ephemeral. This holds true regardless of the leader's age, gender, education, or political ideology. Rulers who govern during an economic crisis perform no better or worse than other rulers. Even presidents and prime ministers who were recognized by the United Nations for environmental leadership had no more success than other leaders in reducing subsidies or raising fuel taxes. Where leaders appear to play an important role-primarily in countries with large subsidies-their reforms often failed, with subsidies returning to prereform levels within the first 12 mo 62% of the time, and within 5 y 87% of the time. Our findings suggest that leaders of all types find it exceptionally hard to raise the cost of fossil fuels for consumers. To promote deep decarbonization, leaders are likely to have more success with other types of policies, such as reducing the costs and increasing the availability of renewable energy.

Where has democracy helped the poor? Democratic transitions and early-life mortality at the country level.

The effects of democracy on living conditions among the poor are disputed. Previous studies have addressed this question by estimating the average effect of democracy on early-life mortality across all countries. We revisit this debate using a research design that distinguishes between the aggregated effects of democracy across all countries and their individual effects within countries. Using Interrupted Time Series methodology and estimating model parameters in a Bayesian framework, we find the average effect of democracy on early-life mortality to be close to zero, but with considerable variation at the country-level. Democratization was followed by fewer child deaths in 21 countries, an increase in deaths in eight, and no measurable changes in the remaining 32 cases. Transitions were usually beneficial in Europe, neutral or beneficial in Africa and Asia, and neutral or harmful in Latin America. The distribution of country-level effects is not consistent with common arguments about the conditional effects of democratic transitions. Our results open a new line of research into the sources of theses heterogeneous effects.