IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v37y2020i2p140-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Political Viability of Carbon Pricing: Policy Design and Framing in British Columbia and California

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Karapin

Abstract

The adoption of climate policies with visible, substantial costs for households is uncommon because of expected political backlash, but British Columbia's carbon tax and California's cap‐and‐trade program imposed such costs and still survived vigorous opposition. To explain these outcomes, this article tests hypotheses concerning policy design, framing, energy prices, and elections. It conducts universalizing and variation‐finding comparisons across three subcases in the two jurisdictions and uses primary sources to carry out process tracing involving mechanisms of public opinion and elite position‐taking. The article finds strong support for the timing of independent energy price changes, exogenous causes of election results, reducing the visibility of carbon pricing, and using public‐benefit justifications, as well as some support for making concessions to voters. By contrast, the effects of the use of revenue, industry exemptions/compensations, and making polluters pay are not uniform, because the effects of revenue use depend on how it is embedded in coalition building efforts and a middle path between exempting or compensating industry and burdening it appears to be more effective than pursuing just one or the other approach. 鉴于可预期的政治反对,采用给家庭带来显著成本的气候政策并不常见,然而,不列颠哥伦比亚省实行的碳政策与加利福尼亚州的碳排放总量管制与交易计划却强制施加了这类成本并仍然挺过了强烈反对。为解释这些结果,本文检验了有关政策设计、政策制定、能源价格和选举的假设。本文对这两个管辖区中的三个子案例进行了一般化比较和差异识别比较,并使用原始数据执行一项追踪过程,后者涉及与舆论和精英政治立场相关的机制。本文发现,独立的能源价格变化,选举结果的外部起因,碳定价可见性的减少,使用有益于公众的正当理由等方面存在强烈支持,对选民做出让步也存在部分支持。相反的是,税收使用、产业豁免/补偿机制、以及让污染者买单所产生的效果并不统一,因为前者取决于其如何被置于联盟建构工作,而在豁免或补偿产业及烧碳之间选择一条中间路径似乎比仅追求其中一种方法更为有效。 La adopción de políticas climáticas con costos visibles y sustanciales para los hogares es poco común debido a la reacción política esperada, pero el impuesto al carbono de la Columbia Británica y el programa de tope y comercio de California impusieron tales costos y aún sobrevivieron a la oposición vigorosa. Para explicar estos resultados, este documento prueba hipótesis sobre el diseño de políticas, la elaboración, los precios de la energía y las elecciones. Realiza comparaciones de universalización y búsqueda de variaciones en tres subcajas en las dos jurisdicciones y utiliza fuentes primarias para llevar a cabo el rastreo de procesos que involucran mecanismos de opinión pública y toma de posición de élite. El documento encuentra un fuerte apoyo para el momento de los cambios independientes en los precios de la energía, causas exógenas de los resultados electorales, la reducción de la visibilidad de los precios del carbono y el uso de justificaciones de beneficio público, así como cierto apoyo para hacer concesiones a los votantes. Por el contrario, los efectos del uso de los ingresos, las exenciones / compensaciones de la industria y hacer que los contaminadores paguen no son uniformes, porque el primero depende de cómo se integra en los esfuerzos de construcción de coaliciones y parece un camino intermedio entre eximir o compensar a la industria y cargarla. para ser más efectivo que seguir solo uno u otro enfoque.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Karapin, 2020. "The Political Viability of Carbon Pricing: Policy Design and Framing in British Columbia and California," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 140-173, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:37:y:2020:i:2:p:140-173
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12373
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12373?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beck, Marisa & Rivers, Nicholas & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2016. "A rural myth? Sources and implications of the perceived unfairness of carbon taxes in rural communities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 124-134.
    2. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2017. "Exploring Citizen Support for Different Types of Climate Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 56-69.
    3. Erick Lachapelle & Christopher P. Borick & Barry Rabe, 2012. "Public Attitudes toward Climate Science and Climate Policy in Federal Systems: Canada and the United States Compared," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 334-357, May.
    4. World Bank Group, "undated". "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019," World Bank Publications - Reports 31755, The World Bank Group.
    5. Hugh Compston & Ian Bailey, 2016. "Climate policy strength compared: China, the US, the EU, India, Russia, and Japan," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 145-164, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Rabbia, 2023. "Why did Argentina and Uruguay decide to pursue a carbon tax? Fiscal reforms and explicit carbon prices," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 230-259, March.
    2. Kayla M. Young & Kayla Gurganus & Leigh Raymond, 2022. "Framing market‐based versus regulatory climate policies: A comparative analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 798-819, November.
    3. Roger Karapin, 2020. "Household Costs and Resistance to Germany's Energy Transition," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 313-341, May.
    4. Muth, Daniel, 2023. "Pathways to stringent carbon pricing: Configurations of political economy conditions and revenue recycling strategies. A comparison of thirty national level policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    5. Inhwan Ko & Taedong Lee, 2022. "Carbon pricing and decoupling between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth: A panel study of 29 European countries, 1996–2014," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(5), pages 654-673, September.
    6. Sung Eun Kim & Seung Yeob Kim & Junwoo Suh, 2024. "Public support for carbon tax in South Korea: The role of tax design and revenue recycling," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kitt, Shelby & Axsen, Jonn & Long, Zoe & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2021. "The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: Comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    3. Sebastian Levi & Christian Flachsland & Michael Jakob, 2020. "Political Economy Determinants of Carbon Pricing," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 128-156, May.
    4. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Mouez Fodha, 2023. "Debt, tax and environmental policy [Dette, taxe et politique environnementale]," Post-Print halshs-04181981, HAL.
    5. Axsen, Jonn & Wolinetz, Michael, 2021. "Taxes, tolls and ZEV zones for climate: Synthesizing insights on effectiveness, efficiency, equity, acceptability and implementation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Scott, William A. & Jaccard, Mark, 2021. "Designing flexible regulations to mitigate climate change: A cross-country comparative policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. Sverker C. Jagers & Erick Lachapelle & Johan Martinsson & Simon Matti, 2021. "Bridging the ideological gap? How fairness perceptions mediate the effect of revenue recycling on public support for carbon taxes in the United States, Canada and Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(5), pages 529-554, September.
    8. Julie Bayle-Cordier & Loïc Berger & Rayan Elatmani & Massimo Tavoni, 2023. "Breath, Love, Walk? The Impact of Mindfulness Interventions on Climate Policy Support and Environmental Attitudes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-29, July.
    9. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    10. E. Keith Smith & Adam Mayer, 2019. "Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 17-34, January.
    11. Raphael Calel & Jonathan Colmer & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Matthieu Glachant, 2021. "Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon?," CESifo Working Paper Series 9368, CESifo.
    12. Zeynep Clulow & Michele Ferguson & Peta Ashworth & David Reiner, 2021. "Political ideology and public views of the energy transition in Australia and the UK," Working Papers EPRG2106, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    13. Joseph E. Aldy & Robert N. Stavins, 2021. "Rolling The Dice In The Corridors Of Power: William Nordhaus’S Impacts On Climate Change Policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert Mendelsohn (ed.), CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS Commemoration of Nobel Prize for William Nordhaus, chapter 1, pages 1-18, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. You-Yi Guo & Jin-Xu Lin & Shih-Mo Lin, 2022. "The Distribution Effects of a Carbon Tax on Urban and Rural Households in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    15. Dugan, Anna & Mayer, Jakob & Thaller, Annina & Bachner, Gabriel & Steininger, Karl W., 2022. "Developing policy packages for low-carbon passenger transport: A mixed methods analysis of trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Li, Haoyang & Wu, Nan, 2022. "Emission pricing, emission rebound, and the coverage scope of incomplete regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    17. Odland, Severin & Rhodes, Ekaterina & Corbett, Meghan & Pardy, Aaron, 2023. "What policies do homeowners prefer for building decarbonization and why? An exploration of climate policy support in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Groh, Elke D. & Möllendorff, Charlotte v., 2020. "What shapes the support of renewable energy expansion? Public attitudes between policy goals and risk, time, and social preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Ma, Xin & Talluri, Srinivas & Ferguson, Mark & Tiwari, Sunil, 2022. "Strategic production and responsible sourcing decisions under an emissions trading scheme," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1429-1443.
    20. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.

    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:37:y:2020:i:2:p:140-173. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.