Do women leaders drive better environmental outcomes?

How do we provide energy to poor, rural communities in a sustainable way? What would incentivize policymakers in developing countries to create policies that provide more electricity while not further contributing to climate change? Are these policymakers concerned about climate change or more interested in just furthering their electoral gains?

These are the types of questions that drive Meera Mahadevan’s research. The assistant professor of economics at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS) explores how developing countries can sustainably provide the resources their citizens need, such as electricity and water. And she researches these topics by looking at what motivates policymakers to create and implement policies that help both their constituents and meet climate change mitigation goals.

She has made major discoveries with her research, much of which is conducted in India, where Mahadevan grew up. She has found that when women are elected to political office in India, air pollution decreases. She also uncovered mass corruption in the country with how politicians misuse their influence over state-controlled electricity to sure up their reelections.

Mahadevan, who is a faculty affiliate with the 21st Century India Center at GPS,  sat down with University Communications to discuss her work and the critical role women play in policymaking, as well as how motherhood has shaped her work.

You have a working paper that finds female legislators were able to lower air pollution relative to male leaders. How did you make this discovery?

One of the largest sources of air pollution in India is agricultural burning, and it's just been this absolutely devastating problem in the last 15 years. A lot of policymakers across various Indian states have tried a host of different policies to try to combat this, but it’s clear these policies are not working. So we looked at whether the outcomes of crop burning could be related to who's enforcing these rules. Specifically, we examine leadership and leader identity.

We found that in a district where a female leader won, there was a marked reduction in burning of 13%, which further causes a 40% reduction in resultant particulate matter, which is huge. There could be many explanations for why these female leaders achieved this: are they better managers? Did they enforce anti-burning laws more forcefully? We ran a large survey of village-level leaders and discovered there are different policy priorities and different perceptions of the effects of burning. Large parts of India remain quite patriarchal. Working women are often the primarily responsible party for their kids' health. They're the ones taking their kids to the hospital when the children have a bad cough or a bad respiratory infection. And so we surveyed these women leaders, and to a far greater degree than the male leaders, they reported that they are worried about the respiratory and health impacts of crop burning on children specifically, whereas the top worries for the male leaders were issues like soil fertility — they want to help these farmers turn over a better profit. And completely different policy priorities lead them to focus their efforts very differently.

You made another surprising discovery with your research, finding that policymakers in India manipulate the state-run power sector, which exacerbates energy inefficiency. Can you tell me more about that study?

I found this trend in India where politicians, especially in settings where they don't work with very large campaign budgets, misuse their influence to get reelected. My evidence suggests that they try to think about what policy levers they have at their disposal to illicitly subsidize their constituents and to try and lock in their votes for next time. They may not have cash to hand out, but they try to think of other freebies that they can throw constituents’ way. And so one particularly egregious example is the fact that a lot of electricity provision in India is state-owned and managed. That doesn't mean they are like politicians’ personal piggy bank, but they sometimes use it like that. So for instance, if you voted for me and I'm your leader, I'm going to make sure your electricity bill is half what it needs to be. And because there's no legislative body on earth that's going to say, “Yeah, OK, just give 50% off to your constituents,” I figure out illicit ways of doing this. So I, the politician, create a system where you consumed 300 kilowatt hours this month. I'm just going to write 150 because I can take advantage of the fact that none of your meters are “smart,” like they are in the U.S. They're not wirelessly transmitting this data. In India, someone has to come in person to write whatever number they see and go back and enter it in the system. So that's the step where they put half the amount. And so it's interesting because you see almost a 40% discount going to people who voted for the ruling party at the state level in India. And this is widespread enough that it costs a large amount of taxpayer money to bail out electricity utilities that are continually making losses due to politician misuse.

Since your paper was published in 2024, have you seen anything in the news that may confirm some of your findings?

Recently, I have been seeing news that seems to be as close as we will come to a public admission of what politicians are doing. There’s been a lot of pushback when it comes to smart meter installations. Politicians often resist them because smart meters take away the ability to misreport electricity consumption—a tool that my research showed that politicians misused for their own gain. I’ve heard so many stories of policymakers blocking these installations to keep that flexibility. For example, just last month, Mumbai politicians blocked smart meters because their constituents were furious about being "excessively charged"—which really just means they were being undercharged before, because smart meters are not known to systematically overestimate consumption. And it's not just Mumbai; we’ve seen the same thing happen in Bihar, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu.

The politicization of subsidized electricity has even made its way to the Supreme Court. A think tank filed a case arguing that politicians promise “free electricity” during elections without mentioning that it’s actually funded through public money (link).

You have made the connection with how motherhood may influence policymakers in different parts of the world. You have two young children; has motherhood influenced your research interests?

Absolutely. Having two young children makes me acutely aware of the world they’re inheriting, and it’s important to me to contribute toward a more sustainable future. For me, the most meaningful way to do that is by understanding the incentives that drive politicians, interest groups and citizens. If we can better map out these systems, we can redesign them to align more effectively with climate goals while also expanding energy access for the world’s poor in a way that acknowledges the realities of climate change.

What advice do you have to other aspiring female academics and women of color who want to pursue work in STEM?

First, I’d say—go for it. Your voice and perspective are incredibly valuable. The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities to make a meaningful impact.

Second, don’t shy away from asking big questions or tackling topics that matter to you, even if they feel unconventional. Sometimes, the most important work challenges the status quo, and that can be uncomfortable—but it’s also where real change happens.

And look, I’ve never been apologetic about working on areas I care about and know best. There’s a tendency for people to assume that if you’re not working on topics related to the Western world, then it’s “development” work rather than just economics. But I see it as working on the world’s problems. Air pollution in India has consequences far beyond its borders. Questions around climate change, gender and politics are universal. These are issues I’ve thought about for years, and I bring my institutional knowledge of growing up in India into my research.

I don’t think anyone should shy away from bringing their life experience into their work or feel pressured to focus on what others consider “worthy.” Look at what happened when women leaders were in a position to address a long-pressing issue of crop burning in India. They brought their priorities, born of their life experience, and focused on addressing the problem in a way that those with different priorities couldn't. We learn more when we welcome all perspectives. Your ideas and research are worthy. Don’t let anyone make you feel otherwise.

Read more of Mahadevan’s research on VOX EU.