Is Competence Issue-Transferable?

• In Event: Poster Session: Public Policy Preferences and Attitudes toward Democracy & European Politics and Society
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Public Policy Preferences and Attitudes toward Democracy

Abstract

One of the main obstacles to the successful promotion of environmental policies is their distributional consequences. Policies that appear to disproportionately burden specific communities or socioeconomic groups are less popular and thus have a lower likelihood of success (e.g., Stokes 2015; Mildenberger and Tingley 2017). We also know that adequate compensation can boost support for climate change legislation (Bergquist, Mildenberger, and Stokes 2020). Yet, what influences perceptions of an environmental policy’s economic impact is lesser known. In this paper, we build on theories of party issue ownership and ask: how do parties’ reputations for competence on certain issues affect the way in which individuals perceive the consequences of environmental policies?

Traditionally, environmental policies, including measures to combat climate change, have been closely associated with left-wing parties - especially green parties - while right-wing parties have often been perceived as prioritizing economic interests over environmental concerns. In other words, perceived rightward shifts of parties lead voters to ascribe greater economic competence to parties (Adams et al. 2023). Previous research has also found that a leader’s known preference may give them an advantage in negotiations. For instance, Mattes and Weeks (2019) argue that hawks enjoy an advantage in negotiating peace agreements, because the public expects hawks to better protect national interests. When this logic is applied to environmental politics, we expect that when a right-wing party and a left-wing party proposes an identical environmental policy, the right-wing party may enjoy an advantage over the liberal party due to their issue ownership.

To be more specific, we hypothesize that, controlling for individuals’ ideology and stated issue priorities, environmental policies supported by parties that “own” economic issues will be perceived more favorably. On the other hand, environmental policies supported by parties that own environmental issues will be perceived less favorably. This is expected because when an economy prioritizing party supports an environmental policy, respondents will expect a less negative impact on the economy. Meanwhile, when the policy is supported by an environment prioritizing party, the expected environmental impact will be more positive, but the expected economic impact will be more negative.

To test our hypotheses, we use a survey experiment using vignettes on a hypothetical environmental policy. Respondents are given a short vignette on an environmental policy, targeting to reduce a significant amount of carbon emission, in a hypothetical country. *Economy* treatment group will read that the policy was initiated by a political party that has always prioritized the economy, while *environment* treatment group will read that the same policy was initiated by a political party that has always emphasized environmental issues. The control group will read that the policy was supported by a bipartisan coalition. After reading the vignette, the subjects are asked to evaluate the overall policy, its effect on the national economy, and its effect on the environment. The order of these three questions are randomized to avoid ordering effects.

This research contributes to the field of environmental politics by exploring a previously unstudied determinant of environmental policy attitudes — political parties and their issue ownership. Understanding what shapes people’s views on environmental policies is crucial for helping facilitate alignment of policies and public opinion. Thus, our study holds important policy implications for many countries that face with the challenge of winning support for climate change legislation. Moreover, as we see an increase in right-wing parties advocating for climate change, our study helps to understand what that implies for climate change policy making process.

Authors

• RyuGyung Park, UC Davis

• Timea Balogh, University of California, Davis