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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    UNFCCC, http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/India/1/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf (Accessed 28 November 2016)

  2. 2.

    UNFCCC, http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Canada/1/INDC%20-%20Canada%20-%20English.pdf (Accessed 28 November 2016)

  3. 3.

    Council of Foreign Relations, http://blogs.cfr.org/sivaram/2015/12/12/two-cheers-for-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/ (Accessed 28 November 2016)

  4. 4.

    Climate Action Tracker, http://climateactiontracker.org (Accessed 28 November 2016)

  5. 5.

    Public goods games are used to simulate climate negotiations to understand how different factors affect the production of a public good (see Barrett 2003, 2006, 2011; Buchanan et al. 2009; Burton-Chellew et al. 2013; Dutta and Radner 2009; Milinski et al. 2008, 2011; Tavoni et al. 2011). Our interest is in the behavior of a participant and how their behavior is motivated by fairness preferences meaning an ultimatum game is more appropriate.

  6. 6.

    nodeGame, http://nodegame.org (Accessed 1 December 2016)

  7. 7.

    Amazon Mechanical Turk, https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome (Accessed 1 December)

  8. 8.

    If all players participated in all rounds, we would have 1242 rounds. This is due to a technical malfunction or players voluntarily disconnecting before the end of the game. This is one of the first applications of nodeGame. On the 17 and 24 April, the server overloaded meaning participants were kicked out of the game prior to completing all the rounds. We addressed this problem later on. Other participants left the game prior to completion either voluntarily or their computer malfunctioned. We tested if samples were balanced in the endogenous and exogenous conditions with respect to historical responsibility, capacity, and other player characteristics. We found no significant differences so dropouts should not affect our results.

  9. 9.

    We calculated the VIF for historical responsibility against capacity, risk aversion, altruism, ecological concern, round, and prior participation. We repeated this for capacity again historical responsibility and the other covariates. Both values were over 5.

  10. 10.

    Climate Outreach, http://climateoutreach.org/ (Accessed 1 December 2016)

References

  1. Almås I, Cappelen AW, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2010) Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science 328:1176–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753

  3. Balietti, S (2016). nodeGame: real-time, synchronous, online experiments in the browser. Behav Res Methods: 1–20

  4. Barabas J, Jerit J (2010) Are survey experiments externally valid? Am Polit Sci Rev 104:226–242. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett S (2003) Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University Press

  6. Barrett S (2006) Climate treaties and "breakthrough" technologies. Am Econ Rev 96:22–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barrett S (2011) Avoiding disastrous climate change is possible but not inevitable. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108:11733–11734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bechtel MM, Scheve KF (2013) Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. P Natl Acad Sci USA 110:13763–13768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bernauer T, Gampfer R (2015) How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy? Environ Sci Pol 54:316–330

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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 90:166–193

  13. Buchan NR, Grimalda G, Wilson R, Brewer M, Fatas E, Foddy M (2009) Globalization and human cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(11):4138–4142

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell WK, Sedikides C (1999) Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: a meta-analytic integration. Rev Gen Psychol 3:23–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cappelen AW, Nielsen UH, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B, Tyran JR (2013) Give and take in dictator games. Econ Lett 118:280–283

    Article  Google 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 70:1529–1535

    Article  Google 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 35:1–7

    Article  Google 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 56:425–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dutta PK, Radner R (2009) A strategic analysis of global warming: theory and some numbers. J Econ Behav Organ 71:187–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. The Quarterly J of Econ 114(3):817–868

  22. Fuglestvedt JS, Kallbekken S (2016) Climate responsibility: fair shares? Nat Clim Chang 6:19–20

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E (2003) Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evol Hum Behav 24(3):153–172

  25. Huff C, Tingley D (2015) Who are these people? Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Res & Polit 2:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  26. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm Decis Mak 5:411–419

    Google 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 534:631–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J Econ Perspec 21:153–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mattoo A, Subramanian A (2012) Equity in climate change: an analytical review. World Dev 40:1083–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Milinski M, Röhl T, Marotzke J (2011) Cooperative interaction of rich and poor can be catalyzed by intermediate climate targets. Clim Chang 109:807–814

    Article  Google 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 105:2291–2294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Murphy RO, Ackermann KA (2013) Social value orientation theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 18:13–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ramsay, K. W., & Signorino, C. S. (2009). A statistical model of the ultimatum game. University of Rochester

  34. Schleich J, Dütschke E, Schwirplies C, Ziegler A (2016) Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis. Clim Policy 16:50–67

    Article  Google 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 51:515–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Signorino CS, Yilmaz K (2003) Strategic misspecification in regression models. Am J Polit Sci 47:551–566

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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 51:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wintre GM, North C, Sugar LA (2001) Psychologists' response to criticisms about research based on undergraduate participants: a developmental perspective. Can Psychol 42:216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zizzo DJ (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Exp Econ 13:75–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this article was funded by the ERC Advanced Grant ‘Sources of Legitimacy in Global Environmental Governance’ (Grant 295456) and supported by ETH Zürich. We are grateful to Robert Gampfer, Mike Hudecheck, Vally Koubi, Liam McGrath, Lionel Miserez, Irina Shaymerdenova, and Florian Schmidt.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brilé Anderson.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1718 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, B., Bernauer, T. & Balietti, S. Effects of fairness principles on willingness to pay for climate change mitigation. Climatic Change 142, 447–461 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1959-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate Policy
  • Ultimatum Game
  • Historical Responsibility
  • Mitigation Cost
  • Burden Sharing