Motivated Localism: Polarization and Public Support for Intergovernmental Carbon Reduction Efforts

Abstract

Climate challenges in the 21st century have given rise to re-thinking the role of local governments in confronting larger-than-local challenges. However, anthropogenic climate change has become a weaponized partisan issue, and surveys show a growing partisan tribalization over climate science. Empowering local governments to take broader climate and sustainability actions is one avenue for addressing this. This study tests a localism hypothesis, which holds that citizens will be more supportive of local climate efforts when the benefits are internalized by the community. This deference to locally directed actions springs from the predisposition for decentralization of political authority widely attributed to localism, a directional goal of motivated reasoners which may feed into social identity, cohesion and shared community values. Through three survey experiments, the study finds citizens are more likely to favor continuation of local climate-related programs in the face of high performance and politicization at the federal level.

The Transaction Costs of the Administrative Presidency: Evidence From a Trump-Era Clean Water Act Enforcement Reduction

“…Our results affirm concerns about presidential administrations becoming more emboldened to use executive authority to meet political environmental policy goals (Fiorino, 2022; Rabe, 2022; Shafie, 2020). Given that congress remains extremely polarized on environmental policy matters (Bromley-Trujillo & Nolette, 2023; Deslatte, 2023; Dishman, 2023) current and future presidential administrations are expected to use executive actions to alter environmental policy again (Rabe, 2022; Shafie, 2020). This could lead to poor implementation outcomes at the local level, warranting further investigation into the link between the administrative presidency and local environmental governance.…”