Dividing the pie in the eco-social state: Exploring the relationship between public support for environmental and welfare policies

Abstract

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.

Public Support for Sustainable Welfare Compared: Links between Attitudes towards Climate and Welfare Policies

“…Originally, Gough et al [9] expected that countries with a social-democratic welfare regime, which have proven to be more equal in socio-economic terms than conservative and liberal ones, would also perform best on environmental sustainability indicators. However, subsequent studies [27,30,31] could not confirm any link or synergy between countries" welfare regime affiliation and environmental performance. Yet, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the institutional potentials of social-democratic welfare states to initiate eco-social policies and, eventually, build eco-social states may have as yet been under-utilized.…”

“…To achieve greater compatibility between welfare and climate policies in democratic societies and initiate effective eco-social policies, knowledge about existing attitudes among the electorate towards both welfare and climate policies and their interrelations is crucial. Jakobsson et al [27] used data from the International Social Survey Programme to comparatively study attitudes towards environmental and welfare policies at the example of people's willingness to pay for environmental protection on the one hand and, on the other, for reducing social inequalities. In this paper, we explored welfare and climate policy attitudes in 23 countries as to whether these diverge or converge.…”

“…In this paper, we explored welfare and climate policy attitudes in 23 countries as to whether these diverge or converge. To the former, Jakobsson et al [27] (p. 4) referred in terms of crowding-out: Climate-related and social concerns are substitutes, that is, people who prioritize climate policy are less concerned about social inequality and related welfare issues and policies or vice versa. The latter would constitute what Jakobsson et al call "double worry": Since people who are concerned with traditional social issues and policies also worry about the climate, there is synergy between their attitudes towards both kinds of policies.…”

Money, Vouchers, Public Infrastructures? A Framework for Sustainable Welfare Benefits

“…The Welfare Benefit (Income, Voucher, Infrastructure) (8) is given to (a) everyone in the jurisdiction (b) a specific target group (means-tested or privilege(d) (c) applicants (d) legal entities (e.g., companies) (9) can (a) not be transferred (b) be transferred to selected people (e.g., family members) (c) be donated to institutions (d) be freely traded (10) is issued/paid for by (a) international organizations/the state/counties/municipalities (b) public institutions (e.g., health insurances) (c) NGOs and self-governed institutions (d) private companies (11) is accepted and the good/service provided within a certain geographical area of validity (a) accepted by public institutions e.g., municipalities (b) accepted by public sectors (e.g., public hospitals) (c) accepted by non-profit sector (d) accepted by private sector e) accepted by other individuals (12) is of (a) explicit character (i.e., paper, electronically) (b) implicit character (i.e., recipients themselves become the "vouchers" that are allocated to certain institutions e.g., school enrolment [15]) (c) neither (13) (a) enables exclusive access to the good, which means the good cannot be acquired by other means (b) can only be used up to a maximum consumption when recipients are subject to the welfare programme. If they want to consume more they have to opt-out of the welfare programme (c) an advantaged (e.g., discount) access to the good that can otherwise be bought for regular prices on the market (14) relates to the prior situations as (a) introducing a new good (b) providing an existing goods in a new way (e.g., instead of in-cash or in-kind benefits) (c) replacing a market distribution of the good (d) being part of a larger policy change e.g., establishing a compensation for a tax raise.…”

“…Welfare states shape societal provisioning systems and welfare regimes are said to differ in their ability to incorporate environmental goals [9,10]. Indeed different clusters of eco-social states have been identified, although a systematic relationship has not yet been found with welfare state regime types [11,12]. At the same time, welfare states directly contribute to resource consumption through their expenditure on social policy, which forms a significant portion of most state budgets.…”