Threshold Role of Democracy in the Nexus of Sustainable Development and Fiscal Stance
Article Sidebar
Open full text
Issue Vol. 21 No. 1 (2026)
-
Global Resilience in the Face of Aggression: An Analysis of Sanctions Pressure on Russia's Economy
Olena Honcharenko, Olha Diachenko1-15
-
The Impact of National Interests on Cooperation in Global Environmental Policy
Mohamed Debbah, Sofiane Rimouche16-29
-
Environmental and Social Sustainability Pathways in the Development of Energy Storage Technologies: Global Scenario Analysis
Pawel Rydzewski30-41
-
Electricity Network Capacity Needs for Industrial Decarbonization in China: Pathways to Net-Zero under Grid Constraints
Mohammed Touitou42-60
-
Importance of Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 4 in Relation to overall Sustainable Development
Magdaléna Drastichová, Jiří Fišer61-78
-
From Antagonism to Peace with Nature: Paradigm Shifts in the Human–Nature Relationship
Ryszard F. Sadowski79-88
-
Threshold Role of Democracy in the Nexus of Sustainable Development and Fiscal Stance
Emin Efecan Aktaş89-110
-
Managing Sustainable Digital Marketing: Financial Implications, Security and Ethical Challenges
Ganna Likhonosova, Iryna Shevchenko, Valentyna Hatylo111-128
-
SDG-2: Food and Nutrition Security in BRICS Countries: Do GVC Participation and Carbon Footprints Matter?
SDG2- Food and nutrition Security, Carbon footprints and GVC ParticipationLiu Dan129-159 -
Eco-Taxation and Financial Development: Catalyst for Green Innovation and Environmental Sustainability in the EU
Seyi Saint Akadiri, Sani Abubakar, Fadhila Hamza160-172
-
Energy Transition, Environmental Sustainability and Healthcare Costs in Emerging Sub-Saharan Economies: Evidence from the Pre- and During-COVID-19 Periods – Implications for SDG 3, SDG 7 and SDG 13
Changhong Xu, Changhua Xu173-204
-
Carbon Intensity, Renewable Energy Consumption and SDG8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth in MINT Countries
Weiwei Zhang, Erfu Zhang205-228
-
Environmental Sustainability, Institutions, and Inclusive Growth in MINT Countries: Pathways to Achieving SDG 13- Climate Action
Mengya Wei, Aminat Olayinka Olohunlana, Musa Abdu, Evans Osabuohien229-246
-
Enduring Wisdom: Traditional Sustainable Livelihood Practices of Indian Tribes
Shivendra Shandilya, Dr. Rouchi Chaudhary247-255
-
Research on Sustainable Development Strategies for Folk Culture in Rural China: Based on the Experiencing Perspective
Huangdong Ma, Fenghua Lu, Jiqun Deng256-263
-
Public Governance of Smart Grid Implementation in Urban Energy Infrastructure
Nataliia Protsiuk, Hanna Komarnytska, Maksym Khozhylo, Olesya Lobyk, Tetiana Iankovets264-278
-
Carbon Emission, Human Capital and Adoption of Green Energy Technology in Sub- Saharan Africa
Qingli Li, Lihan Gu279-294
-
Sustainable Development Commitments in the Kenya–EU Economic Partnership Agreement
Mateusz Prorok295-304
-
Realizing Sustainability: An Analysis of Agroforestry Policy Coherence in Indonesia in the Forestry, Agriculture, and Environment Sectors
Eno Suwarno, Indra Gumay Febryano, Fazriyas, Saefudin305-316
-
Can Tourism be Sustainable? An International Perspective
Rupsha Chakraborty, Dipannita Chand317-325
-
Prospects for Development of the Global Automotive Industry in Context of Digitalization and Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
Serhii Kozlovskyi, Illya Khadzhynov, Vladyslav Bolhov, Inna Akhnovska, Vladislav Kabachii, Volodymyr Kozlovskyi, Oleksandr Kozlovskyi326-341
Archives
-
Vol. 21 No. 1
2026-01-12 21
-
Vol. 20 No. 2
2025-09-16 20
-
Vol. 20 No. 1
2025-01-10 22
-
Vol. 19 No. 2
2024-07-01 24
-
Vol. 19 No. 1
2024-01-08 27
-
Vol. 18 No. 2
2023-07-10 25
-
Vol. 18 No. 1
2023-01-01 25
-
Vol. 17 No. 2
2022-07-04 26
-
Vol. 17 No. 1
2022-01-03 28
Main Article Content
DOI
Authors
Abstract
This study investigates how democratic quality conditions the fiscal implications of sustainable development policies in OECD countries. Building on the theoretical notion of a democracy threshold, the analysis explores whether fiscal stance – measured through budget balances and debt dynamics – responds differently to sustainability-oriented expenditures across varying levels of democratic maturity. Annual data for 38 OECD economies spanning 1993-2023 are employed, and a dynamic panel threshold model following Caner and Hansen (2004) and Kremer et al. (2013) is estimated to capture potential nonlinearities and endogeneity. The model integrates fiscal, macroeconomic, and institutional variables, with the democracy index serving as the threshold variable. The results reveal the presence of a statistically significant democracy threshold, indicating that below this point, sustainable development amplifies fiscal pressures, leading to higher deficits and debt accumulation. Above the threshold, however, democratic consolidation strengthens fiscal discipline and allows sustainability to be absorbed without destabilizing public finances. These findings underscore that fiscal stance and democratic governance are mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development rather than competing objectives. Policy implications highlight the importance of tailoring fiscal frameworks to institutional maturity – strengthening fiscal transparency and accountability in low-democracy regimes while integrating sustainability assessments into fiscal rules and budgeting in advanced democracies. The study contributes to the literature by introducing the democracy threshold concept into fiscal stance analysis and providing empirical evidence of regime-dependent effects of sustainable development. By linking fiscal stance, democracy, and sustainability performance within a unified empirical framework, this research aligns with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), offering guidance for designing more resilient and equitable fiscal strategies in OECD countries.
Keywords:
References
1. AASKOVEN L., 2023, Institutionalizing the autocratic penalty away: fiscal rules, autocracy, and sovereign financial mar-ket access, Political Science Research and Methods 11(4): 930-937, https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.22
2. ACEMOGLU D., ROBINSON J.A., 2019, The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty, Penguin Press, New York, USA.
3. AFONSO A., ALVES J., COELHO J.C., 2025, Determinants of the degree of fiscal sustainability, International Journal of Finance & Economics 30(2): 1190-1205, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2960. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2960
4. ALT J.E., LOWRY R.C., 1994, Divided government, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: Evidence from the states, American Political Science Review 88(4): 811-828, https://doi.org/10.2307/2082709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2082709
5. ARELLANO M., BOVER O., 1995, Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models, Journal of Econometrics 68(1): 29-51, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D
6. AZIZI K., CANRY N., CHATELAIN J.-B., TINEL B., 2013, Government solvency, austerity and fiscal consolidation in the OECD: A Keynesian appraisal, HAL (Working Paper No. hal-00818474), France, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1304.7330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2227110
7. BADINGER H., REUTER W.H., 2017, The case for fiscal rules, Economic Modelling 60(C): 334-343, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.09.028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.09.028
8. BALLARD-ROSA C., MOSLEY L., WELLHAUSEN R.L., 2021, Contingent advantage? Sovereign borrowing, demo-cratic institutions, and global capital cycles, British Journal of Political Science 51(1): 353-373, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000455
9. BANIK D., 2022, Democracy and sustainable development, Anthropocone Science 1(C): 233-245, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44177-022-00019-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44177-022-00019-z
10. BEQIRAJ E., FEDELI S., FORTE F., 2018, Public debt sustainability: An empirical study on OECD countries, Journal of Macroeconomics 58(2): 238-248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2018.10.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2018.10.002
11. BEYALA B.C.N., OWOUNDI J.P.F., 2025, The effects of fiscal rules on budget deficit: Does democracy matter? Jour-nal of Comparative Economics 53(1): 290-315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2025.01.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2025.01.005
12. BOJANIC A.N., 2018, The impact of fiscal decentralization on accountability, economic freedom, and political and civil liberties in the Americas, Economies 6(1): 1-20, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies6010008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies6010008
13. CANER M., HANSEN B.E., 2004, Instrumental variable estimation of a threshold model, Econometric Theory 20(5): 813-843, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604205011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604205011
14. CIAFFI G., DELEIDI M., CAPRIATI M., 2024, Government spending, multipliers, and public debt sustainability: An empirical assessment for OECD countries, Economia Politica 41(2): 521-542, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-024-00335-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-024-00335-0
15. DALY H.E., 1996, Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development, Beacon Press, Boston, USA.
16. DANIELE G., ROMARRI A., VERTIER P., 2021, Dynasties and policymaking, Journal of Economic Behavior & Or-ganization 190(C): 89-110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.07.023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.07.023
17. DEBRUN X., JONUNG L., 2019, Under threat: Rules-based fiscal policy and how to preserve it, European Journal of Political Economy 57(C): 142-157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.09.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2018.09.001
18. DOLAN E., 2021, Rules for sustainable fiscal policy: Three perspectives, Niskanen Center, https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Jan21-Rules-For-Sustainable-Fiscal-Policy-1.pdf (19.10.2025).
19. EL-SHAGI M., VON SCHWEINITZ G., 2021, Fiscal policy and fiscal fragility: Empirical evidence from the OECD, Journal of International Money and Finance 115(102292): 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102292
20. FOREMNY D., 2014, Sub-national deficits in European countries: The impact of fiscal rules and tax autonomy, European Journal of Political Economy 34(2): 86-110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.01.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.01.003
21. HAGGARD S., KAUFMAN R.R., 2021, Backsliding: Democratic regress in the contemporary world, Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, UK, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108957809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108957809
22. HANSEN B.E., 1999, Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimating, testing and Inference, Journal of Economet-rics 93(2): 345-368, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025-1
23. HICKEL J., 2020, The sustainable development index: Measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the Anthropocene, Ecological Economics 167(106463): 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011
24. HUI J., MARTINEZ-VAZQUEZ J., 2021, Sustainable development and the optimal level of fiscal expenditure decentrali-zation, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University (International Center for Public Policy Working Paper No. 21-03), Atlanta, USA, https://icepp.gsu.edu/files/2021/02/21-03-Susdev-and-Optimum-Decentralization_v2.pdf.
25. JAHN D., SUDA S., 2022, Sustainable policy performance and types of governance: Is there a trade-off between consen-sus and efficiency? European Policy Analysis 8(2): 209-230, https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1143
26. KOKOSZCZYŃSKI R., MACKIEWICZ-ŁYZIAK J., 2025, Central Bank Independence and Fiscal Stance: The Role of Institutions in Supporting Fiscal Sustainability, Economics & Politics, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.70013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.70013
27. KREMER S., BICK A., NAUTZ D., 2013, Inflation and growth: New evidence from a dynamic panel threshold analysis, Empirical Economics 44(2): 861-878, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0553-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-012-0553-9
28. LEE C.L., AHMAD R., ABDUL KARIM Z., KHALID N., 2023, Institutional quality, income level, and debt sustainabil-ity: New evidence using dynamic panel threshold regression, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 29(5): 1520-1538, https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2023.19247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2023.19247
29. LUO P., ZHANG C., CHENG B., 2025, Toward sustainable development: The impact of green fiscal policy on green total factor productivity, Sustainability 17(3): 1-21, https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031050
30. MARQUARDT J., PFEIFFER F., BLUM M., DAW T.M., DUGASSEH F.A., HEITZIG J., TØNDER L., 2025, Rec-onciling democracy and sustainability: Three political challenges and the role of democratic innovations, Sustainability: Sci-ence, Practice and Policy 21(1): 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2504239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2504239
31. MEADOWCROFT J., LANGHELLE O., RUUD A., eds., 2014, Governance, democracy and sustainable development: Moving beyond the impasse, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
32. MORALES-CASETTI M., BUSTOS-GUTIÉRREZ M., MANQUEPILLÁN-CALFULEO F., HOCHSTETTER-DIEZ J., 2024, Quality of government, democracy, and well-being as determinants in achieving the sustainable development goals, Sustainability 16(13): 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135430
33. NARITA Y., SUDO A., 2021, Curse of democracy: Evidence from the 21st century, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University (Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 2281R), New Haven, USA, https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-08/d2281-r_0.pdf.
34. NORTH D.C., WALLIS J.J., WEINGAST B.R., 2009, Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for inter-preting recorded human history, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575839
35. OBENG S.K., 2021, Fiscal decentralization, democracy and government size: Disentangling the complexities, Journal of International Development 33(6): 975-1004, https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3545
36. OECD, 2022, The past and future of subnational fiscal rules. An analysis of fiscal rules over time, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, https://doi.org/10.1787/d2798c9e-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/d2798c9e-en
37. OECD, 2023, Fiscal constitutions: An empirical assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrxjctrxp8r-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrxjctrxp8r-en
38. QIAO M., DING S., LIU Y., 2019, Fiscal decentralization and government size: The role of democracy, European Jour-nal of Political Economy 59(1): 316-330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.04.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.04.002
39. OZDEMIRAY S.M., KODRANJECI E., 2025, The four seasons of behavioral public policies, Necmettin Erbakan Uni-versity Journal of the Faculty of Political Sciences 7(1): 125-150, https://doi.org/10.51124/jneusbf.2025.111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51124/jneusbf.2025.111
40. PERSSON T., TABELLINI G., 2003, The economic effects of constitutions, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2591.001.0001
41. PESARAN M.H., 2007, A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-sectional dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics 22(2): 265-312, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
42. PESARAN M.H., 2015, Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels, Econometric Reviews 34(6-10): 1089-1117, https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623
43. RIBLIER V., 2023, The fiscal cost of public debt and government spending shocks, arXiv (arXiv:2309.07371), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.07371.
44. RODRIK D., 2021, Why does globalization fuel populism? The economics of the great divergence, Annual Review of Economics 13(1): 133-170, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-070220-032416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-070220-032416
45. SACHS, J.D., LAFORTUNE, G., FULLER, G., IABLONOVSKI, G. 2025, Financing sustainable development to 2030 and mid-century (Sustainable Development Report 2025). SDSN & Dublin University Press, https://doi.org/10.25546/111909.
46. SAKURAGAWA M., SAKURAGAWA Y., 2020, Government fiscal projection and debt sustainability, Japan and the World Economy 54(3): 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2020.101010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2020.101010
47. SÖDERBAUM P., 2006, Democracy and sustainable development - What is the alternative to cost–benefit analysis? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2(2): 182-190, https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020211
48. TRAN N., 2018, Debt threshold for fiscal sustainability assessment in emerging economies, Journal of Policy Modeling 40(2): 375-394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2018.01.011
49. UN, 2015, Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (19.10.2025).
50. UNDESA, 2024, The Sustainable Development Goals report 2024, https://doi.org/10.18356/9789213589755 (19.10.2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18356/9789213589755
51. WESTERLUND J., 2007, Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 69(6): 709-748, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
52. WHITEHEAD M., 2018, Sustainable development, ed. Castree N., Hulme M., Proctor J.D., Companion to environmental studies, Routledge, Abingdon, UK: 110-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315640051-23
53. WCED, 1987, Our common future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
54. WYPLOSZ C., 2005, Fiscal policy: Institutions versus rules, National Institute Economic Review 191(C): 64-78, https://doi.org/10.1177/0027950105052661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0027950105052661
55. WYPLOSZ C., 2012, Fiscal rules: Theoretical issues and historical experiences, ed. Alesina A., Giavazzi F., Fiscal policy after the financial crisis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA: 495-525, https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/fiscal-policy-after-financial-crisis/fiscal-rules-theoretical-issues-and-historical-experiences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226018584.003.0013
56. WURSTER S., 2015, Sustainability of fiscal policy in democracies and autocracies, Challenges in Sustainability 3(1): 1-15, https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2015.03010001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2015.03010001
57. ZHENG M., WU L., FENG G.-F., CHANG C.-P., 2025, The impact of green finance on sustainable development: An investigation into national ESG performance, Journal of Applied Economics 28(1): 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2025.2528672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2025.2528672
Article Details
Abstract views: 5

