Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments

Abstract

Under a polycentric approach to climate change, action is taken at different scales and across all levels of government and sectors of society. Some scholars have argued that such an approach is the best lens to view the governance of climate change and that a polycentric approach has advantages in addressing collective‐action problems. However, taking a polycentric approach would require public support for action at multiple scales. The issue of climate change is polarized across political beliefs and cultural worldviews and little research has examined how the public views climate action at one level of government relative to others as well as relative to actions by the private sector and by individuals. Using an original survey of the US public from October 2017, I explore who it is that the public thinks should "do more" about climate change and the role that the cultural worldviews posited by cultural theory—hierarchical, egalitarian, individualist, and fatalist—plays in shaping those opinions. Overall, I find support for multiple actors doing more to address climate change, but with differences in support between egalitarians and individualists for actors overall and for the federal government in particular.

Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs

“…At the same time, this is in line with recent calls for combining environmental problem solutions with other, often overlapping, socio‐economic issues. Paying attention to cultural particularities of contexts, undertaking behavioral change campaigns, and tailoring messages by actor type and political convictions appears to matter for environmental policy support (Fesenfeld et al, 2021; Huber, Fesenfeld, & Bernauer, 2020; Huber, Wicki, & Bernauer, 2020; Nowlin, 2022), as does pairing environmental policy arguments with a range of arguments such as health outcomes, energy policy, and sustainable development (Čábelková et al, 2022; Creutzig et al, 2020; Jett & Raymond, 2021; Wise, 2021). This could be done through construction of “social mandates” (e.g., Howarth et al, 2020), whereby large social programs with a combination of economic, social, and environmental policies could increase support for climate action (e.g., Bergquist et al, 2020; Huber, Wicki, & Bernauer, 2020).…”

Cultural biases, agenda setting, and the regulation of policy processes

“…本期收录的前两篇文章应用文化理论来阐明新冠肺炎期间的一个关键问题:合规性与疫苗强制令。文化理论越来越多地应用于公共政策研究，以补充对“政策偏好和行为的个体驱动因素”的解释(Nowlin, 2022; Olli & Swedlow, 2022; Song, Silva, & Jenkins‐Smith, 2014)。风险文化理论根据格‐群维度、宿命论、平等主义和个人主义，区分了四种不同的世界观(Swedlow, 2014; Wildavsky, 1987)。Yuan和Swedlow(2024)分析了这些文化偏见对公众支持和遵守新冠肺炎保护政策(特别是保持社交距离和疫苗强制令)的影响，以及这些影响如何受到“与各自政策的价值趋同”的中介作用。他们表明，个人主义式(相对于等级制)的文化偏见通常会减少(等级制则增加)对保持社交距离和疫苗强制令的支持和遵守，并且这种关系受到消极(等级制则为积极)价值趋同的中介作用。至于宿命论偏见，作者只能证实与保持社交距离相关的预期关系，而不能证实与疫苗强制令相关的预期关系。…”

“…Los dos primeros artículos de este número aplican la teoría cultural para arrojar luz sobre un tema crítico durante la COVID‐19: el cumplimiento y los mandatos de vacunación. La teoría cultural se aplica cada vez más en la investigación de políticas públicas para contribuir a la explicación de los impulsores individuales de las preferencias y el comportamiento político (Nowlin, 2022; Olli & Swedlow, 2022; Song, Silva, & Jenkins‐Smith, 2014). La teoría cultural del riesgo distingue entre cuatro visiones del mundo diferentes según una cuadrícula y una jerarquía de dimensiones grupales: el fatalismo, el igualitarismo y el individualismo (Swedlow, 2014; Wildavsky, 1987).…”

“…The first two articles in this issue apply cultural theory to shed light on a critical issue during COVID‐19: compliance and vaccine mandates. Cultural theory is increasingly applied in public policy research to add to the explanation of individual drivers of policy preferences and behavior (Nowlin, 2022; Olli & Swedlow, 2022; Song et al., 2014). The cultural theory of risk distinguishes between four different worldviews according to a grid and a group dimension hierarchy, fatalism, egalitarianism and individualism (Swedlow, 2014; Wildavsky, 1987).…”

Hydraulic fracturing, polarization, and environmental policy implementation

“…However, the results differ depending on whether policy elites or the general public are asked. One side of the mutual evaluation between policy elites and the general public in the context of climate change is further investigated by Nowlin (2022). His article centers on the polarization of climate change across beliefs and cultural worldviews and analyzes the public's perception of who should be responsible for climate action.…”