Abstract
Conventional wisdom holds that climate policies imposing substantial costs on individuals only receive little public support. Policymakers are thus reluctant to implement such policies because they fear a political backlash. However, the specific mechanisms driving low support levels are widely understudied, and experimental evidence is scarce. We argue that support for policies depends on three mechanisms: (i) the policy instrument design, (ii) attitudes towards government, and (iii) individual proximity towards the policy issue. We test our arguments by comparing seven mobility-related policy measures, for which we explain the differences in support due to these three factors. We utilise a nationally representative sample of 2034 Swiss citizens and assess the role of the three mechanisms for public policy support measured in a conjoint experiment. The results suggest that all three mechanisms, policy design, attitudes towards government, and proximity, affect public support. First, we find that respondents show the least support for coercive market-based policies with usage dependent costs. Second, those who trust the government are inclined to support environmental and climate policies. Third, respondents who are the most affected will oppose policies the most. The explorative assessment also suggests that the dimensions are mostly independent of each other. However, proximity and policy measures with usage dependent costs reinforce their adverse effects. Implications for policymakers are manifold: First, considering the backlash from those affected most is of utmost importance to avoid public outcries against policy proposals in times of widespread anti-elitist sentiments. Second, compensations for those affected most might be one way to mitigate the problem at hand.
Highlights
The scholarly community has emphasised the need to mitigate climate change actively
We utilise a nationally representative sample of 2034 Swiss citizens and assess the role of the three mechanisms for public policy support measured in a conjoint experiment
The results suggest that all three mechanisms, policy design, attitudes towards government, and proximity, affect public support
Summary
The scholarly community (and more recently, politicians and the broader public) has emphasised the need to mitigate climate change actively. Recent work [27], see [28] has assessed whether specific policies are especially popular or unpop ular This literature notably focuses on push/pull and command-andcontrol/market-based distinctions for deriving expectations about the effect of policy design on support [29,30,31] and on more specific design aspects, such as the level of carbon taxes [32] or changes in en ergy costs [10]. The literature has delved into a more specific concept, populism, which is expected to relate to trust in government negatively This distrust leads to more opposition to climate change and related policies. Switzerland thereby constitutes a hard but representative case for our research question regarding preferences for redistribution because the implementation of such policies due to the relatively high wealth is unlikely to endanger individuals’ livelihood This setting is ideal for studying public support for far-reaching energy policies. We test our expectations and conclude by discussing the results’ implications
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
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 call