IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v239y2026ics0921800925001971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Populism and support of onshore wind energy: Explaining different perspectives from the left and right

Author

Listed:
  • Fanghella, Valeria
  • Schleich, Joachim
  • Sebi, Carine

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between political orientation and support of onshore wind energy, using demographically representative surveys of the population in France. Our micro-econometric analysis focuses on individuals with left- or right-wing populist views and highlights the importance of accounting for trust in government when estimating this relationship. Support for onshore wind energy tends to be lower on the right side of the political spectrum—especially on the far right—than on the left and center. The difference in support between voters of populist and traditional parties (on either side of the political spectrum) becomes more pronounced when trust in government is excluded from the econometric specification. Thus, studies omitting trust in government may lead to biased estimates of the relation between populist party affiliation and opposition to climate policies. Moreover, the relation between political orientation and support of onshore wind energy appears to be sensitive to the scale used to measure political orientation. Finally, we find no evidence that political orientation relates to support of solar energy, suggesting that the role of political orientation in public support differs across renewable energies.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanghella, Valeria & Schleich, Joachim & Sebi, Carine, 2026. "Populism and support of onshore wind energy: Explaining different perspectives from the left and right," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:239:y:2026:i:c:s0921800925001971
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001971
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108714?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:ecolec:v:239:y:2026:i:c:s0921800925001971. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.