Abstract
Combating climate change requires large economic adjustments with significant distributional implications. To build coalitions of support, scholars and policymakers propose compensating individuals who will bear decarbonization's costs. What are the determinants of public opinion regarding climate compensation and investment? We present theory to explicate how distinct sources of vulnerability influence preferences for different types of climate policy. Fielding original surveys in the United States and India, we show that people who reside in coal-producing regions prefer compensation for lost jobs. The general public privileges diffuse redistribution mechanisms and investments, discounting compensation to targeted groups. Those who are both physically and economically vulnerable have cross-cutting preferences. Nevertheless, there is considerable support across our samples for policies that compensate different coalitions of climate vulnerable citizens, in line with theories of `just energy' transition and embedded liberalism. We connect the distinctive compensatory preferences of fossil fuel communities to a logic of shared identities.
Highlights
Background covariates for ourIndia sample were designed to parallel the US study as closely as possible
This paper provides a theoretical framework and a series of novel empirical tests to explain the determinants of individual preferences for compensation and investments related to climate change policy
One potential explanation for this convergence is that, in contrast to the US, the average voter in India is more concerned about climate vulnerability, bringing General Population preferences closer to those of the Cross-Pressured group. This could occur if among individuals who are not currently exposed to climate change, those in poorer countries are more concerned about future climate change vulnerability given their lack of access to protective mechanisms. Consistent with this explanation, we find both that physical climate change vulnerability is higher in India than in the US and that the General Population and Cross-Pressured samples are less differentiated in India than in the US
Summary
Compensation is a mechanism for allocating resources to the losing parties of a redistributive economic policy. As a burden-sharing tool, its distinctiveness stems from its goal to redress past or future costs. Compensation can have important feedback effects on support for public policy for it can foster belief in the government’s credibility in protecting vulnerable individuals and communities (Autor et al, 2014; Ruggie, 1982). Compensation may fail to achieve policy goals if it is not judiciously calibrated or implemented (Jenkins, 2019). How the public views compensation is critical for successful policy enactment and compliance. ‘Climate losers’ constitute a compelling group with strong material and normative claims. Their demand for redress is likely a condition for supporting credible policy (Bechtel and Scheve, 2013).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
