Should we trust in values? Explaining public support for pro-environmental taxes

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 210-227

  Harring, Niklas ^a   Jagers, Sverker C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Environment; Environmental politics; Policy instruments; Sustainable development; Trust; Values

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS; ENVIRONMENTAL TAX; POLLUTION TAX; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84882972968     PISSN: 20711050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su5010210     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Olson, M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1965.
2. Dawes, R.M. Social dilemmas. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1980, 31, 169-193.
3. As empirically demonstrated by Ostrom [60,63] and a large number of her academic companions, there are certainly exceptions to this rule or general statement: Under certain circumstances, i.e., in the case of so called Common Pool Resource Management, local users tend, under certain conditions, to demonstrate a willingness to participate in co-operation to solve collective action problems.
4. These factors are vital for well-functioning administrative systems, in various policy fields (see Svara, J.H. Introduction: Politicians and administration in the political process-A review of themes and Issues in the literature. Int. J. Publ. Admin. 2006, 29, 953-976).
5. Paelke, R. Environmental challenges to democratic practice, in Greening Environmental Policy. In The Politics of a Sustainable Future; Fisher, F., Black, M., Eds.; Paul Chapman Publishing: London, UK, 1996.
6. Barry, J. Rethinking Green Politics; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1999
7. Eckersley, R. The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004
8. Lundqvist, L.J. En idé före sin tid? Valfrid Paulsson, svensk vattenvård och ekologisk modernisering. In Konflikter, Samarbete, Resultat: Perspektiv på svensk miljöpolitik [Conflikt, cooperation, Performance: Perspectives on the Swedish environmental policy] Festskrift till Valfrid Paulsson; Lundqvist, L.J., Edman, J., Eds.; Kassandra: Brottby, Sweden, 2005.
9. Jagers, S.C. Prospects for Green Liberal Democracy; University Press of America: Lanham, MD, USA, 2007.
10. Dryzek, J.S. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
11. Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000.
12. Smith, G. Taking deliberation seriously: Green politics and institutional design. Environ. Polit. 2001, 10, 72-93.
13. Wheale, A. The New Politics of Pollution; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 1992.
14. Hajer, M.A. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995.
15. Langhelle, O. Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 2000, 2, 303-322.
16. Murphy, J.; Gouldson, A. Environmental policy and industrial innovation: Integrating environment and economy through ecological modernization. Geoforum 2000, 31, 33-44.
17. Mol, A.P.J.; Jänicke, M. The Origins and Theoretical Foundations of Ecological Modernization Theory. In The Ecological Modernisation Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice; Mol, A.P.J.; Sonnenfeld, D.A.; Spaargaren, G.; Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009.
18. Dobson, A. Citzenship and the Environment; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003.
19. Dobson, A. Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 276-285.
20. Tietenberg, T. Economic instruments for environmental regulation. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Pol. 1990, 6, 17-33.
21. Baumol, W.J.; Oates, W.E. The Theory of Environmental Policy, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988.
22. Portney, P.; Stavins, R. Public Policies for Environmental Protection, 2nd ed.; Earthscan: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
23. Sterner, T. Fuel Taxes and The Poor-The Distributional Effects of Gasoline Taxation and Their Implications for Climate Policy; Resources for the Future Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
24. This does not say that economists always would recommend market based policies (see Fullerton, D.; Stavins, R. "How do Economists Really Think about the Environment." BCSIA Discussion Paper 98-04, ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-04, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, April 1998.
25. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A Value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81-97.
26. Stern, P.C. Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407-424.
27. Eriksson, L.; Garvill, J.; Nordlund, A. Acceptability of travel demand management measures: The importance of problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 15-26.
28. De Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of Awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 149, 425-449.
29. Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental Behavior- A Study Into Household Energy Use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70-93.
30. Steg, L.; Drejjerink, L.; Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 415-425.
31. Torgler, B.; Schneider, F. Attitudes towards paying taxes in Austria: An empirical analysis. Empirica 2005, 32, 231-250.
32. Jagers, S.C.; Hammar, H. Environmental taxation for good and for bad: The efficiency and legitimacy of Sweden's carbon tax. Environ. Polit. 2009, 18, 218-237.
33. If these weak spots are materialized or even just suspected, environmental problems are risking becoming aggravated, and this not only because individuals' have a propensity to adopt a defecting behavior. If the general public distrust that the policy instruments are properly introduced and managed by the politicians and/or authorities, they neither accept them as such, nor comply with them if they are ever implemented.
34. Sagoff, M. The Economy of the Earth; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988.
35. Hobson, K. Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: Does the 'rationalisation of lifestyles' make sense? Environ. Polit. 2002, 11, 95-120.
36. Berglund, C.; Matti, S. Citizen and consumer: The dual roles of individuals in environmental policy. Environ. Polit. 2006, 15, 550-571.
37. Maniates, M.F. Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world. Global Environ. Polit. 2001, 1, 31-52.
38. Micheletti, M. Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism, and Collective Action: Palgrave Macmillian: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
39. Skill, K. (Re)Creating Ecological Action Space: Householders' Activities for Sustainable Development in Sweden. In Linköping Studies in Arts and Science; Linköping University: Linköping, Sweden, 2008.
40. Micheletti, M.; McFarland, A. Creative Participation: Responsibility Taking in the Political World; Paradign Publishers: Boulder, Colorado, CO, USA, 2009.
41. Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973.
42. Rohan, M.J. A rose by any name? The values construct. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2000, 4, 255-277.
43. North, D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
44. Bruvoll, A.; Halvorsen, B.; Nyborg, K. Household sorting of waste at source. Econ. Surv. 2000, 4, 337-354.
45. McKenzie-Mohr, D. Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 531-537.
46. Knill, C.; Liefferink, D. Environmental Politics in the European Union; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2007.
47. Matti, S. Exploring Public Policy Legitimacy: A Study of Belief-System Correspondence in Swedish Environmental Policy; Luleå University of Technology: Luleå, Sweden, 2009.
48. Page, B.I.; Shapiro, R.Y. Effects of public opinion on policy. Am. Polit.l Sci. Rev. 1983, 77, 175-190.
49. Feldman, S. Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 1988, 32, 416-440.
50. Kingdon, J.W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies; Harper Collins College: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
51. Stimson, J.A.; MacKuen, M.B.; Erikson, R.S. Dynamic representation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1995, 89, 543-565.
52. Glynn, C.J.; Herbst, S.; O'Keefe, G.J.; Shapiro, R.Y. Public opinion and policymaking. In Public Opinion. Glynn, C.J.; Herbst, S.; O'Keefe, G.J.; Shapiro, R.Y.; Eds.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1999; pp. 299-340.
53. Schwartz, S.H. Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L.; Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 221-279.
54. Nordlund, A.; Garvill, J. Value Structures Behind Proenvironmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 740-756.
55. Dietz, T.; Fitzgerald, A.; Shwom, R. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 335-372.
56. Eriksson, L.; Garvill, J.; Nordlund, A. Interrupting habitual car use: The importance of car habit strength and moral motivation for personal car use reduction. Transport. Res. F 2008, 11, 10-23.
57. Hansla, A.; Gamble, A.; Juliusson, A.; Gärling, T. The relationship between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 1-9.
58. Krantz Lindgren, P. Att färdas som man lär? Om miljömedvetenhet och bilåkande. Doctoral thesis, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg: Gothenburg, Sweden. 2001.
59. Martinsson, J.; Lundqvist, L.J. Ecological citizenship: Coming out 'clean' without turning 'green'? Environ. Polit. 2010, 19, 518-537.
60. Hammar, H.; Jagers, S.C. Can trust in politicians explain individuals' support for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax. Clim. Pol. 2006, 5, 613-625.
61. Torgler, B. Tax morale, rule governed behavior and trust. Constit. Polit. Econ. 2003, 14, 119-140.
62. Torgler, B. To evade taxes or not to evade: that is the question. J. Soc. Econ. 2003, 33, 283-302.
63. Torgler, B. Tax Morale, trust and corruption: Empirical evidence from transition countries. In CREMA Working Paper No. 2004-5, Center for Research in Economics, Managment and the Arts: Basel, Switzerland, 2004. Available online: http://w.crema-research.ch/papers/2004-05.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2013).
64. Tyler, T. Why People Obey the Law; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1990
65. Sandmo, A. The theory of tax evasion: A retrospective view. Natl. Tax J. 2005, 58, 643-663.
66. Uslaner, E.M. The Moral Foundations of Trust; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
67. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. In The Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
68. Ostrom, E.; Gardner, R.; Walker, J. Rules, Games, & Common-Pool Resources; The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1994.
69. Ostrom, E.; Walker, J. Introduction. In Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research; Ostrom, E.; Walker, J.; Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
70. Ostrom, E. Understanding Institutional Diversity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005.
71. Hammar, H.; Jagers, S.C.; Nordblom, K. Perceived tax evasion and the importance of trust. J. Soc. Econ. 2009, 38, 238-245.
72. Frey, B.; Torgler, B. Tax morale and conditional cooperation. J. Comp. Econ. 2007, 35, 136-159.
73. Schwartz, S. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1-65.
74. Dunlap, R.E.; van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425-442.
75. Q: This section deals with the relationship between humans and the environment. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. "Humans have the right to change the natural environment to fit their needs"; "We are approaching the limit of the number of people that the earth can feed"; "Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature"; "Our planet has plenty of natural resources-we just need to learn how to use them wisely"; "Plants and animals have as much of a right as humans to exist"; "When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences"; "If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe"; "Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it"; "The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated"; "The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset". The scale ranges from 1(strongly agree) to 5(strongly disagree). The items are reversed accordingly.
76. Q: This section deals with the current state of the global environment and what the consequences may be. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? "The damages already made to the natural environment may be irreparable"; "Eventually, most environmental problems will solve themselves"; "The global climate is about to change drastically"; "Statements such as that the present levels of environmental pollutants are changing the global climate are exaggerated"; "Thousands of different species will become extinct over the next few decades". The scale ranges from 1(do not agree at all) to (agree completely). The items are reversed accordingly.
77. Q1: To what extent do you agree with the following statements about what causes environmental problems?: "My own lifestyle has contributed to the current environmental problems" Q2: This section lists a variety of statements. To what extent do you agree with each of them?: "Authorities and decision makers, not ordinary people, have the primary responsibility of preventing environmental destruction"; "I am co-responsible for protecting the world's environment"; "Ordinary citizens and not just authorities and decision makers carry a great deal of responsibility for the environment"; "I have no personal responsibility to protect the environment". The scale ranges from 1(do not agree at all) to (agree completely). The items are reversed accordingly.
78. Q: Below you will find a few statements about how a person can feel about the environment and about other people. To what extent do you agree with each statement? "I believe I should consider the environment"; "I don't care about the environmental problems"; "I feel bad if I don't live environmentally friendly"; "I feel I have a moral duty to do something about the environmental problems" The scale ranges from 1(do not agree at all) to (agree completely). The items are reversed accordingly.
79. Q: This section has nothing to do with you. Instead, it deals with what you believe other people do and how you believe they feel. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? "Many people try to do something in daily life about the environmental problems"; "For the sake of the environment, many people frequently choose not to use a car"; "Most people don't care about trying to live environmentally friendly"; "People generally try to limit their car use"; "Most people don't care about trying to decrease their car use for the sake of the environment"; "Many people behave environmentally friendly to a large degree". The index has a Cronbach's alpha of 0.67. The scale ranges from 1-7.
80. Scholz, J.T.; Lubell, M. Trust and Taxpaying: Testing the heuristic approach to collective action Am. J. Polit. Sci. 1998, 42, 398-417.
81. Where 1 and 2 represents very low and low trust, 3 is average trust and 4 and 5 represents high and very high trust.
82. 0 = far left and 10 = far right.
83. These three different categories roughly captures one third of the respondents each.
84. The three different categories are: city, town or countryside.
85. People are asked how often they use a car to get to work/school and the can choose between "5-7 days/week", "3-4 ways/week", "1-2 days/week", "1-3 times/month", "more seldom" and "never". From which three dummies are generate: Seldom (less than 3 times a month) Often (5-7 days a week) In-between (more than 3 times a month but less than 5 days a week).
86. The correlation between political trust and interpersonal trust is.32 while the correlation between interpersonal trust and trust in fellow citizens acting environmentally friendly is 0.16.