Does Distributive Conflict Explain Variation in Green Stimulus Spending? Evidence From 40 Major Economies During the Global Financial Crisis and the Covid‐19 Recession

IF 3.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Vegard Tørstad, Jon Hovi, Håkon Sælen
{"title":"Does Distributive Conflict Explain Variation in Green Stimulus Spending? Evidence From 40 Major Economies During the Global Financial Crisis and the Covid‐19 Recession","authors":"Vegard Tørstad, Jon Hovi, Håkon Sælen","doi":"10.1111/rego.70071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the 2020 Covid‐19 pandemic triggered large economic stimulus packages in most countries. While aimed primarily at saving the domestic economy from widespread bankruptcies and mass unemployment, these stimulus packages also offered governments windows of opportunity for pivoting toward decarbonization. Drawing on a new dataset covering 40 of the world's largest economies' stimulus spending during the two crises, this article addresses two questions: (1) Did the allocation toward green investments increase in government stimulus packages from the GFC to the Covid‐19 downturn? (2) What country characteristics are associated with green stimulus spending in each crisis? Grounded in distributive‐conflict theory, we hypothesize that the relative strength of green and fossil stakeholders in the economy is decisive in shaping climate policy outcomes. Consistent with this theory, our empirical analysis reveals (1) a (small) uptick in major economies' net green spending from 2008 to 2020 and (2) that robust green industrial interests strongly predict cross‐country variation in green stimulus spending. In contrast, countries' levels of fossil fuels production did not exert a proportional influence. Notably, our research also uncovers a pattern of path dependency, with countries leading in green stimulus spending during the GFC maintaining this position also through the Covid‐19 pandemic. Overall, this article contributes new insights to the comparative political economy literature on climate change by analyzing how economic recessions affect the energy transition and how economic structures drive cross‐country variation in investment‐based climate policy.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70071","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the 2020 Covid‐19 pandemic triggered large economic stimulus packages in most countries. While aimed primarily at saving the domestic economy from widespread bankruptcies and mass unemployment, these stimulus packages also offered governments windows of opportunity for pivoting toward decarbonization. Drawing on a new dataset covering 40 of the world's largest economies' stimulus spending during the two crises, this article addresses two questions: (1) Did the allocation toward green investments increase in government stimulus packages from the GFC to the Covid‐19 downturn? (2) What country characteristics are associated with green stimulus spending in each crisis? Grounded in distributive‐conflict theory, we hypothesize that the relative strength of green and fossil stakeholders in the economy is decisive in shaping climate policy outcomes. Consistent with this theory, our empirical analysis reveals (1) a (small) uptick in major economies' net green spending from 2008 to 2020 and (2) that robust green industrial interests strongly predict cross‐country variation in green stimulus spending. In contrast, countries' levels of fossil fuels production did not exert a proportional influence. Notably, our research also uncovers a pattern of path dependency, with countries leading in green stimulus spending during the GFC maintaining this position also through the Covid‐19 pandemic. Overall, this article contributes new insights to the comparative political economy literature on climate change by analyzing how economic recessions affect the energy transition and how economic structures drive cross‐country variation in investment‐based climate policy.
分配冲突能解释绿色刺激支出的变化吗?全球金融危机和新冠肺炎经济衰退期间40个主要经济体的证据
2008年全球金融危机和2020年Covid - 19大流行引发了大多数国家的大规模经济刺激计划。虽然这些刺激计划的主要目的是将国内经济从广泛的破产和大规模失业中拯救出来,但它们也为政府提供了转向脱碳的机会。本文利用涵盖两次危机期间全球40个最大经济体刺激支出的新数据集,解决了两个问题:(1)从全球金融危机到2019冠状病毒肺炎(Covid - 19)经济衰退期间,政府刺激计划中绿色投资的分配是否有所增加?(2)每次危机中与绿色刺激支出相关的国家特征是什么?基于分配冲突理论,我们假设经济中绿色和化石利益相关者的相对实力对气候政策结果的形成具有决定性作用。与这一理论相一致,我们的实证分析显示:(1)2008年至2020年主要经济体的净绿色支出(小幅)上升;(2)强劲的绿色工业利益强烈地预测了绿色刺激支出的跨国变化。相比之下,各国的化石燃料生产水平并没有产生成比例的影响。值得注意的是,我们的研究还揭示了一种路径依赖模式,全球金融危机期间绿色刺激支出领先的国家在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间也保持了这一地位。总体而言,本文通过分析经济衰退如何影响能源转型以及经济结构如何驱动基于投资的气候政策的跨国差异,为气候变化的比较政治经济学文献提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信