Effectively communicating the removal of fossil energy subsidies: Evidence from Latin America

Fossil energy subsidies create a series of distortions that often have negative environmental and social consequences. Yet, since subsidies confer salient and tangible benefits in the form of cheaper prices, citizens are very resistant to reforms. This research investigates how to best communicate the removal of fossil subsidies using a highly powered, pre-registered study with 5,498 participants across 11 countries in Latin America. We assessed baseline knowledge and views about subsidies and randomly assigned participants to one of eight experimental conditions varying in both the aspects emphasized (e.g., environment, distributive justice, prospective fiscal benefits) and the form of providing the message (i.e., complete or summarized information). Our results show that citizens (a) display a generalized lack of knowledge about the existence of energy subsidies, (b) are very unwilling to remove these subsidies once they know of their existence, and (c) would like subsidies to actually increase rather than decrease. Despite these results, our experiment revealed that communication strategies can be tailored to increase the acceptance of energy reforms. Specifically, emphasizing the negative consequences of subsidies (e.g., overconsumption of natural resources and unfair allocation of resources to the wealthy) is more effective than highlighting the potential benefits to be obtained via their removal (e.g., higher investment in healthcare, education, public safety, or welfare programs). Further, providing complete information is more effective than offering summarized pieces of information. These findings provide guidance on how to effectively communicate energy reforms.