IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i2p186-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs

Author

Listed:
  • Temirlan T. Moldogaziev
  • Rachel M. Krause
  • Gwen Arnold
  • Le Ahn Nguyen Long
  • Tatyana Ruseva
  • Chris Silvia
  • Christopher Witko

Abstract

Though many individuals are aware of the need to address environmental concerns, fewer are willing to pay for climate action or think the environment should be a priority for government spending. One compelling reason is that they prioritize using scarce resources to address immediate material concerns. This is particularly likely for individuals facing absolute material scarcity or for those who think they are relatively economically worse off, especially in contexts characterized by rapid transformation and volatility in the levels and quality of social welfare provision. To test these expectations, we analyze survey data from formerly Communist economies, which today find themselves with vastly different fortunes. Empirical findings suggest that absolute and relative material scarcity affect opinions regarding government spending on, and the willingness to pay more for, environmental action. However, willingness to pay more for government public services, inclusive of anti‐poverty initiatives, has an impact on willingness to pay more for climate action, but in counter‐intuitive ways. Overall, the results appear to suggest that explicitly addressing and relating individual living standards and inequality with environmental concerns may expand support for climate action. 尽管许多人都意识到需要应对环境关切, 但很少有人愿意为气候行动买单或认为环境应是政府开支的重点。一个令人信服的原因是, 他们优先使用稀缺资源来解决紧迫的物质关切。对于面临绝对物质匮乏的个体或那些认为自身经济状况相对较差的人来说, 这种情况尤其可能发生, 特别是在社会福利水平和质量存在迅速转变和波动的情境下。为了检验这些预期, 我们分析了来自前共产主义经济体的调查数据, 这些经济体如今的发展趋势已大不相同。实证结果表明, 绝对和相对的物质稀缺性会影响一系列意见, 后者有关于政府在环境行动上的支出以及为环境行动支付更多费用的意愿。不过, “为政府公共服务(包括反贫困倡议)支付更多费用”的意愿, 会以反常的方式影响“为气候行动支付更多费用”的意愿。总体而言, 结果似乎表明, 明确应对个人生活标准和不平等, 并将个人生活标准和不平等与环境关切相联系, 可能会扩大对气候行动的支持。 Aunque muchas personas son conscientes de la necesidad de abordar las preocupaciones ambientales, menos están dispuestas a pagar por la acción climática o piensan que el medio ambiente debería ser una prioridad para el gasto público. Una razón convincente es que priorizan el uso de recursos escasos para abordar preocupaciones materiales inmediatas. Esto es particularmente probable para las personas que enfrentan una escasez material absoluta o para aquellos que piensan que están económicamente peor, especialmente en contextos caracterizados por una rápida transformación y volatilidad en los niveles y la calidad de la provisión de bienestar social. Para probar estas expectativas, analizamos datos de encuestas de antiguas economías comunistas, que hoy se encuentran con fortunas muy diferentes. Los hallazgos empíricos sugieren que la escasez absoluta y relativa de materiales afecta las opiniones sobre el gasto del gobierno y la disposición a pagar más por la acción ambiental. Sin embargo, la disposición a pagar más por los servicios públicos del gobierno, incluidas las iniciativas contra la pobreza, tiene un impacto en la disposición a pagar más por la acción climática, pero de manera contraria a la intuición. En general, los resultados parecen sugerir que abordar y relacionar explícitamente los niveles de vida individuales y la desigualdad con las preocupaciones ambientales puede ampliar el apoyo a la acción climática.

Suggested Citation

  • Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:2:p:186-206
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12498
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12498
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12498?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert A. Huber & Lukas Fesenfeld & Thomas Bernauer, 2020. "Political populism, responsiveness, and public support for climate mitigation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 373-386, March.
    2. Adam J. Newmark & Christopher Witko, 2007. "Pollution, Politics, and Preferences for Environmental Spending in the States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 24(4), pages 291-308, July.
    3. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    4. Van Houtven, George & Cropper, Maureen L., 1996. "When is a Life Too Costly to Save? The Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 348-368, May.
    5. Sanjaya Acharya & Shamshimukhamed Nuriev, 2016. "Role of Public Investment in Growth and Poverty Reduction in Transition Economies," Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, Lifescience Global, vol. 5, pages 310-326.
    6. Howie, Peter & Atakhanova, Zauresh, 2014. "Resource boom and inequality: Kazakhstan as a case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 71-79.
    7. Alexandru Cojocaru & Mame Fatou Diagne, 2015. "How reliable and consistent are subjective measures of welfare in Europe and Central Asia?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 23(1), pages 75-103, January.
    8. Edward B Barbier & Jacob P Hochard, 2018. "The Impacts of Climate Change on the Poor in Disadvantaged Regions," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 26-47.
    9. Andreas Goldthau & Michael LaBelle, 2016. "The Power of Policy Regimes: Explaining Shale Gas Policy Divergence in Bulgaria and Poland," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(6), pages 603-622, November.
    10. Kathryn Harrison, 2012. "A Tale of Two Taxes: The Fate of Environmental Tax Reform in Canada," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 383-407, May.
    11. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    12. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2017. "Concern For Global Warming In Six Islamic Nations: A Multilevel Bayesian Analysis," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(1), pages 63-76, January.
    13. Cruces, Guillermo & Perez-Truglia, Ricardo & Tetaz, Martin, 2013. "Biased perceptions of income distribution and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 100-112.
    14. Erick Lachapelle & Christopher P. Borick & Barry Rabe, 2012. "Public Attitudes toward Climate Science and Climate Policy in Federal Systems: Canada and the United States Compared," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 334-357, May.
    15. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    16. Felix Creutzig & Aneeque Javaid & Nicolas Koch & Brigitte Knopf & Giulio Mattioli & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2020. "Adjust urban and rural road pricing for fair mobility," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(7), pages 591-594, July.
    17. Niklas Jakobsson & Raya Muttarak & Mi Ah Schoyen, 2018. "Dividing the pie in the eco-social state: Exploring the relationship between public support for environmental and welfare policies," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 313-339, March.
    18. Nikolova, Elena & Sanfey, Peter, 2016. "How much should we trust life satisfaction data? Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 720-731.
    19. Ana Abras & Alejandro Hoyos & Ambar Narayan & Sailesh Tiwari, 2013. "Inequality of opportunities in the labor market: evidence from life in transition surveys in Europe and Central Asia," IZA Journal of Labor & Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Cojocaru, Alexandru, 2014. "Fairness and inequality tolerance: Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 590-608.
    21. Amanda E. Wooden, 2014. "Kyrgyzstan's dark ages: framing and the 2010 hydroelectric revolution," Central Asian Survey, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 463-481, October.
    22. Botterill, Linda Courtenay, 2004. "Valuing Agriculture: Balancing Competing Objectives in the Policy Process," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 199-218, August.
    23. David M. Konisky & Jeffrey Milyo & Lilliard E. Richardson, 2008. "Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1066-1085, December.
    24. James W. Stoutenborough & Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & Arnold Vedlitz, 2014. "Public Support for Climate Change Policy: Consistency in the Influence of Values and Attitudes Over Time and Across Specific Policy Alternatives," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(6), pages 555-583, November.
    25. Alice M. Rivlin, 1984. "A public policy paradox," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(1), pages 17-22.
    26. Sem Duijndam & Pieter van Beukering, 2021. "Understanding public concern about climate change in Europe, 2008–2017: the influence of economic factors and right-wing populism," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 353-367, March.
    27. Kilbourne, William & Pickett, Gregory, 2008. "How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 885-893, September.
    28. Hyll, Walter & Schneider, Lutz, 2014. "Relative deprivation and migration preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 334-337.
    29. Inna Čábelková & Luboš Smutka & Wadim Strielkowski, 2022. "Public support for sustainable development and environmental policy: A case of the Czech Republic," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 110-126, February.
    30. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    31. Pasquale Tridico, 2010. "Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Emerging and Transition Economies," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 16(4), pages 979-1001, February.
    32. Galib Bashirov, 2021. "New extractivism and failed development in Azerbaijan," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(8), pages 1829-1848, July.
    33. Mendelsohn, Robert & Dinar, Ariel & Williams, Larry, 2006. "The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 159-178, April.
    34. Craig Jones & Luke Fowler, 2022. "Administration, rhetoric, and climate policy in the Obama presidency," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 512-532, July.
    35. Cojocaru, Alexandru, 2014. "Prospects of upward mobility and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 300-314.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michal Brzezinski, 2019. "Diagnosing Unhappiness Dynamics: Evidence from Poland and Russia," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 2291-2327, October.
    2. Alexandru Cojocaru & Mame Fatou Diagne, 2021. "Redistributive preferences in Europe and Central Asia, 2006–2016," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 151-172, January.
    3. Kayla M. Young & Kayla Gurganus & Leigh Raymond, 2022. "Framing market‐based versus regulatory climate policies: A comparative analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 798-819, November.
    4. JaeYoul Shin, 2018. "Relative Deprivation, Satisfying Rationality, and Support for Redistribution," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 35-56, November.
    5. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    6. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder & Colette S. Vogeler, 2022. "Hydraulic fracturing, polarization, and environmental policy implementation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 384-386, July.
    7. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2018. "Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 477-502, April.
    9. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    10. Bussolo,Maurizio & Lebrand,Mathilde Sylvie Maria & Torre,Ivan, 2020. "Feeling Poor, Feeling Rich, or Feeling Middle-Class : An Empirical Investigation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9456, The World Bank.
    11. Andreoli, Francesco & Olivera, Javier, 2020. "Preferences for redistribution and exposure to tax-benefit schemes in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Melania Michetti & Stefano Ghinoi, 2020. "Climate-driven vulnerability and risk perception: implications for climate change adaptation in rural Mexico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 290-302, September.
    13. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    14. World Bank, "undated". "Europe and Central Asia Economic Update, November 2016," World Bank Publications - Reports 25341, The World Bank Group.
    15. Peter Huber & Josef Montag, 2020. "Homeownership, Political Participation, and Social Capital in Post‐Communist Countries and Western Europe," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 96-119, February.
    16. Heather W. Cann, 2021. "Policy or scientific messaging? Strategic framing in a case of subnational climate change conflict," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 570-595, September.
    17. Boto-García, David & Bucciol, Alessandro, 2020. "Climate change: Personal responsibility and energy saving," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. Ivlevs, Artjoms & Hinks, Timothy, 2018. "Former Communist party membership and bribery in the post-socialist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 1411-1424.
    19. Elvisa Drishti & Zamira Shkreli & Edvin Zhllima & Blendi Gerdoçi, 2023. "Deprivation, Social Mobility Considerations, and Life Satisfaction: A Comparative Study of 33 European Countries," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(3), pages 511-550, September.
    20. Maurizio Bussolo & Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell & Anna Giolbas & Iván Torre, 2021. "I Perceive Therefore I Demand: The Formation of Inequality Perceptions and Demand for Redistribution," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 67(4), pages 835-871, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:2:p:186-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.