Climatic Change

, Volume 142, Issue 3–4, pp 447–461 | Cite as

Effects of fairness principles on willingness to pay for climate change mitigation

  • Brilé Anderson
  • Thomas Bernauer
  • Stefano Balietti
Article

Abstract

Despite the shift from multilateral negotiations on legally binding mitigation commitments to the decentralized nonbinding Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) approach in global climate policy, governments and other stakeholders continue to insist that fairness principles guide the overall effort. Key recurring principles in this debate are capacity and historical responsibility. To keep global warming within the internationally agreed 2 °C limit, many countries will have to engage in more ambitious climate policies relative to current INDCs. Public support will be crucial in this respect. We thus explore the implications of different fairness principles for citizens’ preferences concerning burden sharing in climate policy. To this end, we implemented an online experiment in which participants (N = 414) played an ultimatum game. Participants were tasked with sharing the costs of climate change mitigation. The aim was to examine how participants’ willingness to pay for mitigation was influenced by capacity and historical responsibility considerations. The results show that fairness principles do have a strong effect and that participants applied fairness principles differently depending on their position at the outset. It turns out that participants paid more attention to other players’ capacity and historical responsibility when proposing a particular cost allocation and more attention to their own capacity and responsibility when responding to proposals by others. These and other findings suggest that framing climate policy in terms of internationally coordinated unilateral measures is likely to garner more public support than framing climate policy in terms of a global bargaining effort over the mitigation burden.

Supplementary material

10584_2017_1959_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
ESM 1(DOCX 1718 kb)

References

  1. Almås I, Cappelen AW, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2010) Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science 328:1176–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753Google Scholar
  3. Balietti, S (2016). nodeGame: real-time, synchronous, online experiments in the browser. Behav Res Methods: 1–20Google Scholar
  4. Barabas J, Jerit J (2010) Are survey experiments externally valid? Am Polit Sci Rev 104:226–242. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett S (2003) Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett S (2006) Climate treaties and "breakthrough" technologies. Am Econ Rev 96:22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett S (2011) Avoiding disastrous climate change is possible but not inevitable. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:11733–11734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechtel MM, Scheve KF (2013) Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. P Natl Acad Sci USA 110:13763–13768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernauer T, Gampfer R (2015) How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy? Environ Sci Pol 54:316–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernauer T, Gampfer R, Kachi A (2014) European unilateralism and involuntary burden-sharing in global climate politics: a public opinion perspective from the other side. Eur Union Polit 15:132–151. doi:10.1177/1465116513496878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang. doi:10.1038/nclimate2948 Google Scholar
  12. Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90:166–193Google Scholar
  13. Buchan NR, Grimalda G, Wilson R, Brewer M, Fatas E, Foddy M (2009) Globalization and human cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(11):4138–4142Google Scholar
  14. Burton-Chellew MN, May RM, West SA (2013) Combined inequality in wealth and risk leads to disaster in the climate change game. Clim Chang 120:815–830. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0856-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell WK, Sedikides C (1999) Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: a meta-analytic integration. Rev Gen Psychol 3:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cappelen AW, Nielsen UH, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B, Tyran JR (2013) Give and take in dictator games. Econ Lett 118:280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlsson F, Kataria M, Lampi E, Löfgren Å, Sterner T (2011) Is fairness blind?—the effect of framing on preferences for effort-sharing rules. Ecol Econ 70:1529–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Löfgren Å, Qin P, Sterner T (2013) A fair share: burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China. Resour Energy Econ 35:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dutta PK, Radner R (2009) A strategic analysis of global warming: theory and some numbers. J Econ Behav Organ 71:187–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. The Quarterly J of Econ 114(3):817–868Google Scholar
  22. Fuglestvedt JS, Kallbekken S (2016) Climate responsibility: fair shares? Nat Clim Chang 6:19–20Google Scholar
  23. Gampfer R (2014) Do individuals care about fairness in burden sharing for climate change mitigation? Evidence from a lab experiment. Clim Chang 124:65–74. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1091-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E (2003) Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evol Hum Behav 24(3):153–172Google Scholar
  25. Huff C, Tingley D (2015) Who are these people? Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Res & Polit 2:1–12Google Scholar
  26. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm Decis Mak 5:411–419Google Scholar
  27. Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J Econ Perspec 21:153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mattoo A, Subramanian A (2012) Equity in climate change: an analytical review. World Dev 40:1083–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milinski M, Röhl T, Marotzke J (2011) Cooperative interaction of rich and poor can be catalyzed by intermediate climate targets. Clim Chang 109:807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milinski M, Sommerfeld RD, Krambeck HJ, Reed FA, Marotzke J (2008) The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105:2291–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murphy RO, Ackermann KA (2013) Social value orientation theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 18:13–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramsay, K. W., & Signorino, C. S. (2009). A statistical model of the ultimatum game. University of RochesterGoogle Scholar
  34. Schleich J, Dütschke E, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2016) Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Clim Policy 16:50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sears DO (1986) College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Signorino CS, Yilmaz K (2003) Strategic misspecification in regression models. Am J Polit Sci 47:551–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tavoni A, Dannenberg A, Kallis G, Lšschel A (2011) Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:11825–11829. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102493108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tingley D, Tomz M (2013) Conditional cooperation and climate change. Comp Polit Stud 20:1–25. doi:10.1177/0010414013509571 Google Scholar
  39. Underdal A, Wei T (2015) Distributive fairness: a mutual recognition approach. Environ Sci Pol 51:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wintre GM, North C, Sugar LA (2001) Psychologists' response to criticisms about research based on undergraduate participants: a developmental perspective. Can Psychol 42:216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zizzo DJ (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Exp Econ 13:75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brilé Anderson
    • 1
  • Thomas Bernauer
    • 1
  • Stefano Balietti
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS)ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Network Science InstituteNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social ScienceCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.D’Amore-McKim School of BusinessBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations