Attitudes towards welfare and environmental policies and concerns: A matter of self-interest, personal capability, or beyond?

Abstract

In times of emergent emphases on how climate change will affect welfare societies, welfare policies and individuals’ welfare and vice versa, this study investigates public support for welfare and environmental policies and concerns. Since previous research and literature have pointed towards a socioeconomic divide between the welfare agenda and the environmental agenda in terms of public support, this article makes a thorough socioeconomic analysis of public welfare and environmental attitudes. The article analyses data from an original study in the context of Sweden ( n = 1529). Through multinomial logistic regression analysis this study investigates if and which socioeconomic factors increase the likelihood of expressing mutual support for welfare and environmental policies and concerns compared to expressing support for welfare or environmental policies and concerns in isolation, as well as no support at all. The results indicate that both low and high socioeconomic status factors increase the likelihood of expressing mutual welfare and environmental support. These factors are low - to middle-range income levels, high educational attainment and low - to high-status occupations. Accordingly, this study finds that individuals expressing mutual welfare and environmental support are less easily placed in the low to high socioeconomic continuum. This suggests that we need to go beyond the two established theoretical perspectives of self-interest and personal capabilities when explaining mutual welfare and environmental support and, for example, direct the attention to factors and theoretical points of departure that take post-materialism and non-economic dimensions into account.

If Not Now, Then When? Pathways to Embed Climate Change Within Social Policy

“…This literature, alongside early work on sustainable development (e.g. Brundtland, 1987), and climate justice work on procedural and recognition justice all provide insight into issues rasied under 3.2, however, with the exception of the work of Emilsson et al (2022) and Williams (2021) there has been limited work undertaken within social policy.…”

Support for eco-social policy from a class perspective: Responsibilities, redistribution, regulation and rights

“…Men, people who are less well educated and those in more technical jobs are rather sceptical. Moreover, Emilsson (2022) found that eco-social policy tends to be supported by low and middle-income groups, whereas high-income groups prioritize environmental policies without considering social justice concerns.…”

“…Previous research on attitudes to eco-social policy focused on individuals, and found that eco-social policy is more often supported by women, by politically left-oriented persons, persons with higher education and persons who hold universalistic values (Fritz and Koch, 2019; Otto and Gugushvili, 2020). Material self-interest also seems to play an important role, as ecological concerns are often trumped or crowded-out by competing needs to finance social benefits (Emilsson, 2022; Jakobsson et al, 2018). While such research into attitudes provides valuable knowledge about the personal determinants of certain opinions, there is also a risk that it will take on a behavioural perspective, suggesting how to educate or nudge individuals to ‘behave’ more sustainably; this ultimately shifts the responsibility for tackling climate change to individuals, and reproduces the neoliberal dogma of constant self-improvement.…”

Support for Indirect Carbon Taxes: Danes' Attitudes toward Indirect Carbon Taxes on Aviation, Beef, Clothing, Electronics, Fuel, Heating, and Milk

“…More specifically, the positive correlations observed with higher education levels, which tend to be consistently found, are interpreted through the lens of a 'capability perspective'. This perspective suggests that education and the resources it brings forth cultivate knowledge, concern, and efficacy that contribute positively to environmental attitudes and actions (Emilsson, 2022). Concerns with redistribution and fairness may also to some extent be important for citizens with higher levels of education, but here it is from a vantage point of material and cognitive surplus, in which there is no or little perceived trade-off between social concerns and environmental concerns (Fritz et al, 2021;Otto & Gugushvili, 2020).…”