The moral economy of environmental policies: how welfare and environmental attitudes affect environmental policy support

This paper explores whether value orientation (VO) and trust in the state (TIS) are linked to support for environmental intervention and steering among Swedish students in economics, law, and political science. Furthermore, we considered whether environmental personal norms mediate the link between VO and support for environmental policy instruments and finally, whether TIS moderates the link between environmental personal norms and support for environmental policy instruments, testing this on a sample of over 800 Swedish students. We found a positive link between both a self-transcendence VO and TIS on environmental policy support; however, we cannot confirm a moderating effect of TIS on the relation between environmental personal norms and policy support. Furthermore, left-wing students displayed stronger support for environmental intervention. We conclude that more knowledge on programme-specific characteristics regarding environmental values, beliefs, and attitudes among freshman students can enhance sustainability teaching intended to develop the students’ critical and reflective capabilities.

Previous studies have shown that institutional trust is associated with people’s support for some environmental policies (e.g., support for higher taxation) but not others (e.g., support for subsidies and bans). Such findings seem to contradict the notion that institutional trust helps to resolve social dilemmas and thus facilitates collective action on environmental problems. In the current study, we use the conceptual framework of the attitudinal theory of the Campbell paradigm to understand the lack of institutional trust as a behavioral cost of policy support which counterweights people’s motivation to support a policy. Using a dataset from the Environmental module of a recent ISSP survey conducted in 28 countries, we corroborated the theoretical prediction, namely the expected positive effect of institutional trust on support for both pro- and anti-environmental policies. We also corroborated, albeit with some qualifications, that the choice of environmental policy depends on perceived behavioral costs exemplified, in our study, by institutional trust. The Campbell paradigm provides a useful analytical framework for understanding the role of trust in environmental policy support. It also helps us to understand previous inconsistent findings regarding the effect of trust on environmental policy support.

To address environmental problems, such as climate change, we need two types of public action: pro-environmental behaviour and support for environmental policies. However, from current research, it is unclear whether people who behave pro-environmentally will also support pro-environmental policies. Based on a novel theoretical perspective, we argue that people who behave pro-environmentally are likely to support environmental policy too as both are related to their intrinsic pro-environmental motivation. We test our reasoning in two large-sample, cross-country correlational studies. In Study 1, we mostly find positive relationships between two pro-environmental behaviours and support for three environmental policies in 23 countries. In Study 2, we similarly find positive relationships between indicators of pro-environmental transport behaviour and support for six environmental policies in seven countries. Importantly, across both studies and 18 behaviour-policy pairs, we only find two weak negative relationships between engagement in pro-environmental behaviour and support for environmental policy. In support of our reasoning, across both studies, we mostly find positive relationships between indicators of intrinsic proenvironmental motivation (i.e., biospheric values and personal norms) and both engagement in pro-environmental behaviour and support for environmental policy. Taken together, our results suggest that people who behave pro-environmentally are likely to support environmental policy too, and vice versa. Further, it is very unlikely that pro-environmental actions, both behaviour and policy support, will inhibit one another. Finally, our results suggest that people are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviour and support environmental policies when they have a stronger intrinsic pro-environmental motivation.

ObjectivesFine dust (PM2.5) pollution has emerged as a severe environmental and public health issue in South Korea, affecting respiratory health and reducing outdoor physical activity levels. Given these concerns, individuals increasingly seek restorative natural environments to mitigate the psychological and physical effects of poor air quality. This study examines how fine dust risk perception influences individuals' experiences in perceived restorative environments (PRE) and their intention to support environmental policies. Specifically, this study enhances the understanding of how restorative experiences in urban parks and concerns about environmental issues influence recreationists' perspectives on environmental policies.MethodsThis study was conducted at Jeju Gotjawal Provincial Park, a well-preserved forest ecosystem known for its ecological importance. A total of 408 visitors were surveyed using purposive sampling. Participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing their fine dust risk perception, perceived restorative experience in nature, and intention to support environmental policies. Data was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed hypotheses. In addition, a bootstrap analysis was conducted to examine the mediating effects.ResultsThe findings indicate that individuals who perceive fine dust pollution as a serious issue are more likely to experience a heightened sense of psychological and physical restoration in natural settings. Furthermore, those who find natural environments more restorative tend to express stronger support for environmental policies, suggesting that their positive experiences in nature reinforce their commitment to sustainability. The study also found that perceived restorativeness plays a key role in connecting fine dust risk perception to environmental policy support, emphasizing the importance of personal experiences in shaping pro-environmental attitudes.ConclusionsThese results highlight the role of nature-based experiences in fostering both psychological well-being and environmental engagement. As air pollution continues to pose health risks, providing access to clean, green spaces can be an effective intervention for improving public health and encouraging sustainability advocacy. Policymakers and urban planners should integrate green spaces into urban planning to enhance citizens' environmental awareness and engagement. Future studies should explore longitudinal effects and cross-regional comparisons to validate these findings further.

This article examines age variations in support for environmental protection policies that affect climate change using a sample of over 14,000 respondents to a 1999 Eurobarometer survey. There is a steady decline with age in whether respondents are willing to incur higher gasoline prices to protect the environment. This relationship remains after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics. There are age-related differences in information about environmental risks, information sources about the environment, perceived health risks from climate change, and degree of worry about climate change. However, taking these factors into account does not eliminate the age variation in willingness to pay more for gasoline to protect the environment.

This article examines age variations in support for environmental protection policies that affect climate change using a sample of over 14,000 respondents to a 1999 Eurobarometer survey. There is a steady decline with age in whether respondents are willing to incur higher gasoline prices to protect the environment. This relationship remains after controlling for socioeconomic characteristics. There are age-related differences in information about environmental risks, information sources about the environment, perceived health risks from climate change, and degree of worry about climate change. However, taking these factors into account does not eliminate the age variation in willingness to pay more for gasoline to protect the environment.

Researchers concerned with U.S. environmental policy have long studied the factors associated with political representatives' tendency to vote pro-environment. This work has increasingly pitted the interests of representatives' constituents against those of business elites. Yet little research exists that explores the relative influence of public opinion and businesses political donations on representatives' pro-environmental records. This chapter answers three questions: 1) To what extent do different industries' political contributions effect representatives' proclivity to vote for or against environmental policies; 2) To what extend does public concern towards environmental issues, among representatives' constituents, influence that representatives' environmental voting; and 3) What is the relative influence of industries' political donations and public concern on representatives' support for environmental policies? We find that both industries' political donations and public concern for the environment influence representatives' pro-environmental voting records; however, the relative influence varies according to which industry donated and the representatives' political party.

The aftermath of the Global Financial and Economic Crisis of 2007/2008 turned out as a veritable “stress test” for European welfare states. Aiming to stabilize citizens’ living conditions and mitigate socio-economic hardship, European governments have engaged in active crisis management. Yet, the protective capacities of European welfare states vary, as does individuals’ exposure to crisis-induced social risks. Hence, the crisis has impacted countries and the members of different social classes unequally. Against this backdrop, this paper asks how Europeans’ perceptions of the personal impact of the crisis are associated with their welfare attitudes, focusing on variations between social classes and across nations. Using cross-sectional Eurobarometer survey data from 2010 for 27 European countries, I find that perceived crisis impact is associated with greater support for welfare state responsibility and redistribution. However, this association is not homogeneous but moderated by an individual’s class position as well as national economic conditions and social spending levels. More specifically, on the individual level, perceived crisis impact is associated with more favourable welfare attitudes not only among its traditional supporters—such as the working class or the unemployed—but also among its traditional opponents, notably the self-employed. Furthermore, where social spending is higher, welfare state support is less strongly related to perceived crisis impact, suggesting that more encompassing welfare states mitigate the subjective impacts of the crisis. However, redistribution appears to be slightly more contested between those affected and those not affected by the crisis under better economic conditions. Given the challenges facing welfare states across Europe, it remains to be seen how stable a basis of popular support can be formed on these grounds.

This study investigates how support for Social Europe is related to citizens’ welfare attitudes. On the one hand, welfare attitudes can spill over from the national to the European level, given that Social Europe aims to achieve similar goals to those of national welfare states. On the other hand, support for the welfare state can be an obstacle, if citizens perceive the nation state and the European Union as competing or substituting governance levels. Using data from the 2014 Belgian National Election Study, we take a multidimensional approach to Social Europe, capturing attitudes toward social regulations, member state solidarity, European social citizenship, and a European social security system. Results demonstrate that citizens who are more positive about the welfare state are also more supportive of Social Europe. However, positive welfare attitudes do not affect all dimensions of Social Europe to the same extent. The spillover effect of support for basic welfare state principles is strongest for policy instruments of Social Europe that are less intrusive to national welfare states (EU social regulations). By contrast, welfare state critique has a stronger impact on support for more intrusive instruments (European social citizenship).

This paper analyzes the development of environmental concern by using the three waves of the environmental modules of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). First, we discuss the measurement of environmental concern and construct a ranking of countries according to the new 2010 ISSP results. Second, we analyze the determinants of environmental concern by employing multilevel models that take individual as well as context effects into account. Third, we explore the impact of attitudes on environmental behavior and support of environmental policies. The results show that environmental concern is closely correlated with the wealth of nations. However, environmental concern decreased in OECD as well as non-OECD nations slightly during the last two decades. The decline was lower in countries with improving economic conditions suggesting that economic growth helps to maintain higher levels of environmental concern. Furthermore, attitudes have a stronger impact on support of environmental policies as compared to everyday environmental behavior.

To effectively limit climate change, we need people to both behave pro-environmentally and support environmental policy. However, there are conflicting results about whether people are likely to do both these actions. Extending previous research, we propose that people are likely to both behave pro-environmentally and support environmental policy because both are expressions of intrinsic pro-environmental motivation. We tested our reasoning in three studies in which we vary the order of measuring pro-environmental behaviour and policy support, and include different indicators of behaviour and policy support. As hypothesised, we consistently found that pro-environmental behaviour and environmental policy support are positively related. Importantly, as expected, stronger pro-environmental motivation was related to more pro-environmental behaviour and greater support for environmental policy. Further, the relationship between behaviour and policy support became weaker—or disappeared—when controlling for pro-environmental motivation. We find no evidence that focusing people on their environmental motivation results in increased engagement in pro-environmental action. Our results imply that policymakers can encourage people to both behave pro-environmentally and support environmental policy without concern that one might impede the other.

Recent theoretical literature in social policy argued that climate change posed a new risk to the states and called for transformation from a traditional welfare state to an ‘eco’ state. From a theoretical point of view, different welfare regimes may manage environmental/climate change risks in a similar way to social risks. However, not much has been done to explore the issue empirically. To this end, this paper aims to investigate public attitudes towards environmental and traditional welfare policies given that environmental change is a new social risk the welfare states have to address. Do individuals that care for one area also care for the other? That is, do the preferences in these two policy spheres complement or substitute one another? We test these hypotheses both at the individual- and country-level, using data from 14 countries included in all three waves (1993, 2000, and 2010) of the environmental module in the International Social Survey Programme. Specifically, we investigate the relationship between attitudes towards income redistribution (indicator of support for welfare policy) and willingness to pay for environmental protection (indicator of support for environmental policy). Our findings suggest that attitudes in the two areas are substitutes in the total sample, but that the relationship is very small and only statistically significant in some specifications. When we explore country differentials, we observe clear heterogeneity in the relationship, which can be explained by differences in political and historical contexts across countries.

How does economic globalisation influence individuals’ welfare state preferences? Moving beyond the unidimensional understanding of globalisation exposure, we intersect two dimensions of exposure perceptions (gain vs loss and individual vs societal impacts) and propose a novel typology: collective winner, lone winner, lone loser and collective loser. We then explain the preference gap among losers (collective losers vis-à-vis lone losers) and among winners (collective winners vis-à-vis lone winners) by considering three distinct motivations for welfare state support: compensation, risk-pooling and inequality reduction. We illustrate the usefulness of our typology using an original survey in South Korea. We find that lone winners are far more supportive of welfare spending than collective winners. At the same time, collective losers are found to be much more supportive of welfare spending than lone losers. We provide some first-cut evidence that the insurance-seeking motivation common to lone winners and collective losers drive their welfare state support.

Research on environmental policy support utilises different categorisations of policies, for example, differentiating between policies assumed to be perceived as rewarding or punishing. Do citizens’ perception of environmental policies also lend itself to this categorisation? Based on an exhaustive sample of active policies in Sweden, this study presents a taxonomy of environmental policy support in Sweden. A fairly representative Swedish sample (N = 2911) rated the acceptability of 44 environmental policies. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that participants’ acceptability of policies forms three categories: push policies consisting of regulatory and market-based disincentives, pull policies consisting mainly of market-based incentives, and informational policies, such as ecolabeling. Sociodemographics had small but consistent effects on attitudes towards the three categories, while political ideology had a larger effect across the categories. This study indicates that current academic categorisations may not adequately capture laypeople’s perceptions, and discusses the importance of research on driving mechanisms behind the current taxonomy.

In times of emergent emphases on how climate change will affect welfare societies, welfare policies and individuals’ welfare and vice versa, this study investigates public support for welfare and environmental policies and concerns. Since previous research and literature have pointed towards a socioeconomic divide between the welfare agenda and the environmental agenda in terms of public support, this article makes a thorough socioeconomic analysis of public welfare and environmental attitudes. The article analyses data from an original study in the context of Sweden ( n = 1529). Through multinomial logistic regression analysis this study investigates if and which socioeconomic factors increase the likelihood of expressing mutual support for welfare and environmental policies and concerns compared to expressing support for welfare or environmental policies and concerns in isolation, as well as no support at all. The results indicate that both low and high socioeconomic status factors increase the likelihood of expressing mutual welfare and environmental support. These factors are low - to middle-range income levels, high educational attainment and low - to high-status occupations. Accordingly, this study finds that individuals expressing mutual welfare and environmental support are less easily placed in the low to high socioeconomic continuum. This suggests that we need to go beyond the two established theoretical perspectives of self-interest and personal capabilities when explaining mutual welfare and environmental support and, for example, direct the attention to factors and theoretical points of departure that take post-materialism and non-economic dimensions into account.