调查收入循环与提高碳定价政治可接受性的关联机制

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Daniel Muth
{"title":"调查收入循环与提高碳定价政治可接受性的关联机制","authors":"Daniel Muth","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes the causal relationship between the carbon tax's revenue recycling measures and political acceptability. The Irish carbon tax reform of 2019 forms the basis of the study. The findings are based on deductive content analysis and semi‐structured, elite interviews with key politicians, climate policy advisors, and other influential figures involved in the policy‐making process. Analyzing the extensive Irish revenue recycling scheme, encompassing compensatory measures and various forms of climate spending, provides researchers with the chance to track distinctive causal mechanisms over the course of a politically intense period, leading up to general elections. The results show that relief measures were crucial to alleviate concerns about the negative distributional impact of the policy, which was fiercely attacked by some opposition parties. Additionally, climate spending increased political acceptance by offering low‐carbon alternatives to consumers, even though the policy was initially construed as punitive measure, especially in regions and sectors where switching to low‐carbon options, public transport, or less carbon intense heating, were challenging or even impossible. A unique finding of the study is that revenue recycling facilitates the emergence of cross‐party agreement among ideologically distant parties. Another crucial contribution of this study is the detailed comparison, from the perspective of political acceptability, of two alternative social compensation models, the fee and dividend model, and the integration of targeted social cushioning and climate spending (hypothecation).","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the mechanisms linking revenue recycling to increased political acceptability of carbon pricing\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Muth\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ropr.12625\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper analyzes the causal relationship between the carbon tax's revenue recycling measures and political acceptability. The Irish carbon tax reform of 2019 forms the basis of the study. The findings are based on deductive content analysis and semi‐structured, elite interviews with key politicians, climate policy advisors, and other influential figures involved in the policy‐making process. Analyzing the extensive Irish revenue recycling scheme, encompassing compensatory measures and various forms of climate spending, provides researchers with the chance to track distinctive causal mechanisms over the course of a politically intense period, leading up to general elections. The results show that relief measures were crucial to alleviate concerns about the negative distributional impact of the policy, which was fiercely attacked by some opposition parties. Additionally, climate spending increased political acceptance by offering low‐carbon alternatives to consumers, even though the policy was initially construed as punitive measure, especially in regions and sectors where switching to low‐carbon options, public transport, or less carbon intense heating, were challenging or even impossible. A unique finding of the study is that revenue recycling facilitates the emergence of cross‐party agreement among ideologically distant parties. Another crucial contribution of this study is the detailed comparison, from the perspective of political acceptability, of two alternative social compensation models, the fee and dividend model, and the integration of targeted social cushioning and climate spending (hypothecation).\",\"PeriodicalId\":47408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Policy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12625\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12625","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了碳税的收入循环措施与政治可接受性之间的因果关系。爱尔兰 2019 年的碳税改革是研究的基础。研究结果基于演绎式内容分析以及对主要政治家、气候政策顾问和其他参与决策过程的有影响力人物进行的半结构化精英访谈。通过分析爱尔兰广泛的收入循环计划(包括补偿措施和各种形式的气候支出),研究人员有机会追踪大选前政治紧张时期的独特因果机制。研究结果表明,救济措施对于缓解人们对该政策的负面分配影响的担忧至关重要,因为该政策受到了一些反对党的猛烈抨击。此外,气候支出通过向消费者提供低碳替代品提高了政治接受度,尽管该政策最初被视为惩罚性措施,特别是在那些转向低碳选择、公共交通或低碳取暖具有挑战性甚至不可能的地区和部门。本研究的一个独特发现是,收入循环有助于在意识形态上相距甚远的党派之间达成跨党派协议。本研究的另一个重要贡献是从政治可接受性的角度详细比较了两种可供选择的社会补偿模式:收费和分红模式,以及有针对性的社会缓冲和气候支出(抵押)的整合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating the mechanisms linking revenue recycling to increased political acceptability of carbon pricing
This paper analyzes the causal relationship between the carbon tax's revenue recycling measures and political acceptability. The Irish carbon tax reform of 2019 forms the basis of the study. The findings are based on deductive content analysis and semi‐structured, elite interviews with key politicians, climate policy advisors, and other influential figures involved in the policy‐making process. Analyzing the extensive Irish revenue recycling scheme, encompassing compensatory measures and various forms of climate spending, provides researchers with the chance to track distinctive causal mechanisms over the course of a politically intense period, leading up to general elections. The results show that relief measures were crucial to alleviate concerns about the negative distributional impact of the policy, which was fiercely attacked by some opposition parties. Additionally, climate spending increased political acceptance by offering low‐carbon alternatives to consumers, even though the policy was initially construed as punitive measure, especially in regions and sectors where switching to low‐carbon options, public transport, or less carbon intense heating, were challenging or even impossible. A unique finding of the study is that revenue recycling facilitates the emergence of cross‐party agreement among ideologically distant parties. Another crucial contribution of this study is the detailed comparison, from the perspective of political acceptability, of two alternative social compensation models, the fee and dividend model, and the integration of targeted social cushioning and climate spending (hypothecation).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
23.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Review of Policy Research (RPR) is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the publication of research and analysis examining the politics and policy of science and technology. These may include issues of science policy, environment, resource management, information networks, cultural industries, biotechnology, security and surveillance, privacy, globalization, education, research and innovation, development, intellectual property, health and demographics. The journal encompasses research and analysis on politics and the outcomes and consequences of policy change in domestic and comparative contexts.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信