IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v223y2024ics0921800924001393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carrot and stick incentive policies for climate change mitigation: A survey experiment on crowding out of public support

Author

Listed:
  • Ling, Maoliang
  • Liu, Chutian
  • Xu, Lin
  • Yang, Haimi

Abstract

To motivate public participation in climate change mitigation, both “carrot” policies that create positive incentives for mitigated carbon and “stick” policies that create negative incentives for emitted carbon have been widely applied. Given the joint deployment of these measures, a key question is whether they are compatible with each other. Focusing on the Low-Carbon Reward Scheme (LCRS) and carbon taxes, two prominent proposals on China's climate policy agenda, this study evaluates how one incentive policy affects public support for the other. The results of a large survey experiment with Hangzhou residents indicate a two-way crowding-out effect, wherein introducing the LCRS diminished support for the tax, albeit primarily among LCRS proponents, and introducing the tax reduced support for the LCRS. Aligning with the proposed account, crowding out was driven by a decrease in policy effectiveness and fairness perceptions. These findings reveal a contradictory relationship between carrot and stick policies at the citizen level and illuminate the underlying mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Ling, Maoliang & Liu, Chutian & Xu, Lin & Yang, Haimi, 2024. "Carrot and stick incentive policies for climate change mitigation: A survey experiment on crowding out of public support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:223:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924001393
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924001393
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108242?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 search for a different version of it.

    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:223:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924001393. 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.