What determines a society’s willingness to protect animals? What inspires policy-makers to take animal issues seriously, and act? That’s what this study set out to answer, looking at factors such as freedom of institutions, level of civic participation, and economic growth. While the effect of these variables on general environmental protections has been studied extensively, less is known about their effect on animal protection more specifically.

The authors hypothesize that, taken together, high levels of economic development, democracy, and civic activism contribute to stronger animal rights protections. They looked at a group of 50 countries to put this theory to the test, all of which are covered by the Animal Protection Index (API), an index of national animal protection rights. The countries included are also the largest producers of meat, eggs, and dairy products.

Economic development was measured by GDP per capita – the total value of goods and services produced by a country, divided by its population. While not a perfect measure of economic development, it is widely available and consistent data. To measure level of democracy, the authors used the score from the Polity IV Project, which is based on competitiveness of political participation, manner of selecting the executive, and constraints on executive power. A measure of level of civic involvement was taken from the Indices of Social Development Database, which looks at the size and activity of the NGO sector as well as public willingness to protest. The authors also used their own measurement of animal-focused NGOs relative to country area, in order to focus more strongly on animal rights.

The authors were unable to find a strong correlation between GDP per capita, and / or API score. Level of democracy was correlated with a higher API score, but there is a ceiling to how democratic a country can become. Civic involvement was a mixed bag. When looking at general civic involvement, there was no significant correlation. However, when focusing solely on animal-focused civic engagement, a correlation emerges.

The authors point out that their results do not necessarily disprove a link between economic development and animal protections. GDP per capita is an imperfect measure of a nation’s economy – it doesn’t take into account income inequality, manner of economic growth, volunteerism or other unpaid activity. A more comprehensive measure of economic prosperity might give a different result.

The authors also point out that not all animal-focused NGOs will have similar effects on the legal rights of animals. An animal shelter, for example, will not have as much effect as a lobbying group. This was not taken into account in their study, though it would likely affect the results. Furthermore, the authors do not discriminate between NGOs focused solely on animal rights, like the Humane Society of the U.S., and ones which are interested in animal protection in pursuit of wider goals. Environmental non-profits like the WWF and Sierra Club have an effect on the legal protection of animals, but it isn’t their primary concern.

In terms of strategy, the authors suggest that animal activists focus their activity on more democratic countries, as those are likely to be more receptive to their message. The people in these countries, they reason, are also in a position to do something in response, unlike those in autocratic regimes who have little political power. However, they’re careful to note that civic engagement seems to have diminishing returns. That is, a country with already-strong animal rights NGOs will not be changed much by the addition of one more.

However, they highlight, many strongly democratic nations have little civic engagement, especially in the animal rights field. These nations are likely the best targets for international animal rights activists, as their work will have the largest effect. What’s more, they suggest that animal advocates also back organizations fighting for democratization, as this will help their cause in the future.