IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v43y2026i1ne70015.html

Comparing public support for alternative climate policy designs: An experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Basseches
  • Rebecca Bromley‐Trujillo
  • Kayla Gurganus
  • Leigh Raymond

Abstract

Scholars have debated how specific policy designs may generate stronger positive or negative reactions from the public, especially with regard to public expectations regarding pricing‐based policy designs compared to regulatory approaches. In this study, we report the results of a survey experiment on Virginia registered voters measuring public opinion toward a regulatory versus a pricing‐based policy design, both of which were included in the state's 2020 Clean Economy Act. Our data confirm several hypotheses indicating that public support is no higher for a regulatory design than for a pricing‐based design, and that perceptions of the key effects of both designs are also similar. These findings suggest that public opinion should not be presumed to favor regulatory over pricing‐based policy designs, nor should assumptions about public preferences hinder efforts toward an “all of the above” strategy for mitigating climate change. 学者一直争论具体的政策设计如何会引起公众更强烈的积极或消极反应,尤其是公众对基于定价的政策设计的期望(与监管方法相比)。本研究中,我们报告了对弗吉尼亚州登记选民进行的一项调查实验结果,该实验测量了公众对监管政策设计和基于定价的政策设计的看法,这两项政策设计都包含在该州的2020年《清洁经济法案》中。我们的数据证实了几个假设,即公众对监管设计的支持并不高于对基于定价的设计的支持,并且公众对这两种设计的主要影响的看法也相似。这些发现表明,舆论不应被视为偏好监管政策设计而不是基于定价的政策设计,公众偏好的假设也不应阻碍一系列为缓解气候变化而采取“以上所有”战略的举措。. Los académicos han debatido cómo los diseños de políticas específicas pueden generar reacciones más positivas o negativas del público, especialmente en lo que respecta a las expectativas públicas respecto a los diseños de políticas basadas en precios en comparación con los enfoques regulatorios. En este estudio, presentamos los resultados de una encuesta experimental realizada a votantes registrados de Virginia, que miden la opinión pública sobre un diseño de políticas regulatorio frente a uno basado en precios, ambos incluidos en la Ley de Economía Limpia de 2020 del estado. Nuestros datos confirman varias hipótesis que indican que el apoyo público no es mayor para un diseño regulatorio que para uno basado en precios, y que las percepciones de los efectos clave de ambos diseños también son similares. Estos hallazgos sugieren que no se debe presumir que la opinión pública favorece los diseños de políticas regulatorias sobre los basados en precios, ni que las suposiciones sobre las preferencias públicas deben obstaculizar los esfuerzos hacia una estrategia integral para mitigar el cambio climático.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Basseches & Rebecca Bromley‐Trujillo & Kayla Gurganus & Leigh Raymond, 2026. "Comparing public support for alternative climate policy designs: An experimental study," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 43(1), January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:1:n:e70015
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70015
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.70015?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
    ---><---

    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:43:y:2026:i:1:n:e70015. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.