Prof. Dr. Aya Kachi, Manuel Ebner

International Political Economy and Energy Policy

Research Topic
Mitigating climate change requires public policies that align economic activities with decarbonization goals. But resistance to such policies persists due to fears of negative economic impacts, particularly on job security and the national economy (Bechtel et al., 2019). The compelling policy-kills-jobs narrative, used by opposition groups among both the public and politicians, highlights these fears (Vona, 2019). What has received limited scholarly attention so far is the narrative’s dual facets. While it may reflect genuine economic concerns based on perceived job risks, it may also be a tool to obscure other political and ideological motives against climate policies (Kahan et al., 2011). Examining whether and to what extent these two mechanisms contribute to policy resistance is vital for enhancing future policy design and communication (Benegal et al., 2018). If ideology drives policy resistance, efforts to correct job loss perceptions or offer targeted compensation to the policy’s economic “losers” would have limited success in gaining policy support. Moreover, the narrative also prompts questions about the accuracy of people’s job security perceptions (against objective estimates). Our project, rooted in public opinion research and labor economics, explores these issues through survey experiments in Germany, Switzerland, and the US.

Description of the Problem
Public opinion studies highlight two key elements driving public opinion on climate policies. While climate change concern generally tilts public opinion towards stricter climate laws (Bergquist et al., 2022), support for policies wanes rapidly when seen as costly (Drews et al., 2016). Fairbrother, Kachi, et al. (2023) report lower support for carbon taxes among workers in high-emission industries, indicating a link between job loss fear and policy opposition. Efforts have been made by researchers and journalists to counter the popular job-killing narrative, offering extensive evidence that such policies, overall, do not harm the economy (e.g., Hafstead et al., 2018). Projects like the International Labour Organization‘s “Greening with Jobs” (2018) highlight an estimated net 18 million global job creation as decarbonization efforts advance. However, these messages neglect various unresolved issues that are essential for explaining climate policy resistance. First, labor economics literature indicates policies‘ uneven impact on labor markets using objective labor statistics. When short-term economic “losers” are concentrated in certain skillsets or regions (Lim et al., 2023; Marin and Vona, 2019), touting the aggregate economic benefit of green transition does not help those affected. Second, despite labor economists’ insights, memory limitations and cognitive biases often lead to a mismatch between public perception and scientific consensus (Moore et al., 2016), leading some to evaluate climate policies based on inaccurately perceived job security. No comprehensive study exists on this perception gap regarding job security in green economy transitions. Third, even with information debunking negative labor market impacts related to decarbonization, many resist updating their beliefs and opinions on policies due to their ideological beliefs (Druckman et al., 2019).

Objectives
To address these important and understudied mechanisms behind climate policy resistance, we will tackle the following related questions. Q1: Drawing on labor economics literature, how can we best estimate the transition risk of each individual‘s job objectively? Q2: Compared to the objective measure of job security (Q1), how accurately are people perceiving their job security linked to the economy’s decarbonization? Who are more prone to over- or underestimation? Q3: Prof. A. Kachi M. Ebner 34 Does correcting perception gaps (by experimental treatments) lead people to update their attitudes toward climate policy? (Do people’s job security perceptions causally influence their policy support?) Q4: Does the tendency of attitude update (Q3) differ across different ideological groups (e.g., left, right, libertarian), suggesting varying degrees of economy-ideology conflict.

Importance, Usefulness and Novelty of the Project
The novelty of our study, which combines public opinion and labor economics illuminates the economic and political motives behind climate policy resistance. With this we can aid policymakers in navigating through difficult policy communication, both within national governments and international organizations such as the ILO. Our findings will directly contribute to several scientific communities, such as the economics of climate policy and public opinion research. These insights will also bolster our understanding of public resistance in other policy areas (e.g., refugee & migration policy.