The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries?

Malerba, Daniele Article — Published Version The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries? The European Journal of Development Research Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Malerba, Daniele (2022) : The Effects of Social Protection and Social Cohesion on the Acceptability of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know in the Context of Low- and Middle-Income Countries?, The European Journal of Development Research, ISSN 1743-9728, Palgrave Macmillan, London, Vol. 34, Iss. 3, pp. 1358-1382, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00537-x This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/308850 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol:.(1234567890) The European Journal of Development Research (2022) 34:1358–1382 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00537-x SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion ontheAcceptability ofClimate Change Mitigation Policies: What Do We (Not) Know intheContext ofLow‑ andMiddle‑Income Countries? DanieleMalerba1,2 Accepted: 21 March 2022 / Published online: 6 May 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract Significant climate change mitigation policies are urgently needed to achieve emissions reduction targets. This paper shows that social protection and social cohesion play a critical role in making climate policies more acceptable to citizens by summarizing existing streams of research focusing on industrialized countries. Further, the empirical analysis explores whether these relationships also hold for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are increasingly implementing climate change mitigation policies. The results show that vertical and horizontal trust increase acceptability in all countries. However, preferences for social protection have a positive effect only in industrialized ones. This may suggest a contrast between social and environmental goals in LMICs, where social goals are prioritized. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between social cohesion and social protection. The paper concludes by discussing the existing research gap as to LMICs and outlines policy options to overcome the conflict between social and environmental goals. Keywords Social protection· Social cohesion· Climate change mitigation· Carbon pricing· Acceptability· Policy sequencing Résumé Pour atteindre les objectifs de réduction des émissions, il est urgent de mettre en place d’importantes politiques d’atténuation du changement climatique. Cet article montre que la protection sociale et la cohésion sociale jouent un rôle essentiel pour rendre les politiques climatiques plus acceptables aux yeux des citoyen·ne·s, en faisant un * Daniele Malerba [email protected] 1 German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Tulpenfeld 6, 53113Bonn, Germany 2 University ofManchester, Manchester, UK 1359 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… résumé des courants de recherche existants axés sur les pays industrialisés. En outre, l’analyse empirique cherche à savoir si ces relations sont également valables pour les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire (PRFI), qui mettent en œuvre de plus en plus fréquemment des politiques d’atténuation du changement climatique. Les résultats montrent que la confiance verticale et horizontale augmente l’acceptabilité dans tous les pays. Cependant, les préférences en matière de protection sociale n’ont un effet positif que dans les pays industrialisés. Cela peut suggérer un contraste entre les objectifs sociaux et environnementaux dans les PRFI, où les objectifs sociaux sont prioritaires. L’analyse a également révélé une interaction significative entre la cohésion sociale et la protection sociale. Dans sa conclusion, l’article aborde la question des lacunes qui existent en matière de recherche sur les PRFI et décrit les options, en matière de politiques, pour surmonter l’antagonisme entre objectifs sociaux et objectifs environnementaux. Introduction The present paper explores the literature and performs an empirical analysis of the role of social protection and social cohesion in the acceptability of climate change mitigation policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research has shown that stringent climate mitigation policies are urgently needed to avoid dramatic changes that may push millions of people into poverty (Hallegatte 2016). Despite this need, currently planned and implemented climate policies are not sufficient. In addition to the potential technological issues, many underline political economic problems as well (Jakob etal. 2020); climate mitigation policies involve different actors and interest groups, and can significantly affect the socio-economic development of a country. More specifically, public acceptability of climate policies is critical, and fear of negative distributional effects may block their implementation, as in the case of the yellow vest protests in France. While social cohesion and social protection are both critical for climate mitigation, they have been considered separately in different literatures. Social cohesion is defined here as “the vertical and the horizontal relations among members of society and the state as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, an inclusive identity, and cooperation for the common good” (Burchi etal. 2022). Social cohesion has been found to be a major determinant of climate mitigation policies, especially through vertical and horizontal trust. In particular, countries with greater public distrust of politicians and fellow citizens have been significantly associated with weaker climate policies and higher emissions. In terms of social protection, cash transfers are an important complement to mitigation policies; transfer schemes can address distributional issues arising from increases in prices and job disruptions, and consequently increase the public acceptability of climate mitigation policies (Klenert etal. 2018). This is important as many climate policies are blocked for being deemed unequal and poverty increasing. Furthermore, there is an interaction between social protection and social cohesion in the context of climate change mitigation. One direct link is that cash transfer programs can increase the trust (social cohesion) of the government’s use of revenues (Maestre-Andrés etal. 2019). 1360 D.Malerba A second link comes from the growing body of research on the relationship between social protection and social cohesion, which suggests that the effect of social protection on social cohesion can be both positive and negative (Roelen etal. 2022). One main gap in the existing literature is that the evidence is almost entirely related to high-income countries (HICs). However, LMICs are crucial in battling climate change—as these countries will also need to reduce emissions and/or follow greener development paths—and few of them have committed to net zero emissions by 2050 (van Soest etal. 2021). In addition, LMICs are structurally different from HICs, making findings pertaining to the latter potentially invalid as to the former. While some evidence of the relationship between climate change mitigation and social protection can be inferred from the experience of fossil fuel subsidy reforms, a major gap in the literature still exists. Currently, few studies have explored the relationship between social cohesion and climate change adaptation, but not mitigation. Research has shown that social cohesion can improve climate change adaptation, as highly cohesive communities often fare better during and after natural disasters (Klinenberg 2015); more specifically, social cohesion improves cooperation, especially in emergency response (Cherng et al. 2019; Valente 2017). Conversely, climate change adaptation can affect social cohesion in opposite ways. In Chile, exposure to earthquakes improved several indicators of social cohesion (Calo- Blanco etal. 2017). However, theoretically, climate change adaptation could also lower social cohesion by making resources scarcer and increasing conflicts. The aim of this study is twofold. The first objective is to summarize the relationships between the acceptability of climate mitigation policies, social cohesion, and social protection through different literatures focusing on HICs. The second objective is to explore whether these relationships also hold in the context of LMICs. Despite data limitations, our exploratory analysis at the micro level indicates that vertical and horizontal trust also positively affect the acceptability of mitigation policies (e.g., environmental taxes) in less industrialized countries. In contrast to HICs, climate and social goals in LMICs seem to be deemed as substitutes, and social protection is considered as a tool that is focused moreon addressing poverty rather than socio-ecological transitions; in fact, preferences for welfare states do not correlate positively and significantly with willingness to pay more to protect the environment. Therefore, it is critical that climate change mitigation does not threaten the primary role of the welfare state and socio-economic goals. One main implication of this study is that more research is needed on LMICs. In particular, we were unable to explore the direct compensatory effects of social protection on climate mitigation policies at the cross-county level. This additional research is particularly needed for three main reasons. First, in the aftermath of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, social protection schemes are flourishing in LMICs; therefore, there is an opportunity to link growing social protection systems to climate policies. Second, recent years have been marked by the largest increases in public distrust of the government, businesses, media, and non-govern- mental organizations (NGOs), as well as a rise in populist movements. This could represent a significant barrier to reaching the goals set under the Paris Agreement (Davidovic and Harring 2020; Rafaty 2018). Third, climate policies are increasingly important for LMICs. 1361 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… The flow of this paper is as follows. “Literature Review” section contains the literature review; “Framework, Research Gaps, and Research Agenda” section summarizes the findings as well as the research gaps and outlines the framework; “Empirical Analysis” section presents data, methods and shows the results of the analysis; and “Conclusions and Policy Implications” section discusses conclusions and policy implications. Literature Review The importance of the relationships between social protection, social cohesion, and the acceptability of climate mitigation policies can be inferred from the climate change mitigation literature. For example, Drews and van den Bergh (2016) summarized the three general categories of factors that influence climate policy support from citizens: (1) social–psychological factors and climate change perceptions; (2) the perception of climate policy and its design, which includes the level of policy costs, policy fairness, and the recycling of potential policy revenues through social protection mechanisms; and (3) contextual factors, such as the positive influence of trust, norms, participation, communication and wider economic, political, and geographical aspects. Therefore, social cohesion—especially in the form of trust— and social protection—to compensate for the losses sustained—are critical for the acceptability of climate mitigation policies. This is further explored in the following subsections. Social Cohesion (Trust) andClimate Policies Empirical evidence analyses the importance of trust for the public acceptability of climate mitigation policies. First, there are different types of trust: vertical trust (in politicians), horizontal/generalized trust in other people (Davidovic and Harring 2020), trust in the fossil fuel industry (Rhodes etal. 2017), trust in scientists (Dietz etal. 2007), trust in the renewable energy industry (Rhodes etal. 2017) and trust in NGOs. Second, current research has considered the acceptability of different policy instruments: carbon pricing (carbon taxes and emission trading schemes, both of which create revenues) versus regulatory climate policies. Both aspects are critical as it is important to know what forms of trust affect different policies. Before examining the empirical evidence, the main theoretical channels need to be explained. First, vertical trust may be important in increasing confidence that public policies and environmental measures will be effective; this is true especially when people do not possess sufficient knowledge or time to assess complex environmental issues. In addition, participatory and inclusive policy formation is based on trust (Davenport etal. 2007). On the other hand, a lack of horizontal trust (trust in other people) undermines collective action, since few will have the confidence that others are collaborating. Even the people willing to act to reduce their personal emissions may not act because of free-rider fears (Bohr 2014). In terms of instruments, lower horizontal trust can increase the demand for more regulations 1362 D.Malerba to regulate those who cheat. On the contrary, trust in institutions should increase market mechanisms, such as taxes, as citizens also trust the government in the use of revenues. Therefore, trust, whether in the individuals or in institutions of a society, is a key variable of both individual action and policy support. This links to the literature on trust and collective action problems (such as climate change), where a social dilemma is also present: there can be a little incentive to act form an individual perspective, but a stronger incentive from the societal level (Ostrom 2010). In terms of evidence,1 starting with cross-country studies, Smith and Mayer (2018) have found that individuals with high levels of horizontal (societal) and vertical trust are far more willing to support costly climate policies. Using survey data from 35 European and Central Asian countries, they found that, at the individual level, horizontal trust is generally positively associated with improved policy support. Vertical trust is relevant to willingness to pay but not to personal behavior. Davidovic and Harring (2020), using the 2016 European Social Survey (ESS), discovered that generalized trust is positively linked to support for environmental taxes, but not to support for subsidies and bans; people also need to trust other citizens and actors to comply with the policies in order to accept their implementation. In addition, they found greater variation in support of climate taxes across countries compared to the other policy instruments. Levi (2021), also using ESS data, discovered that vertical trust and personal responsibility to try to reduce climate change are the two strongest predictors of carbon tax attitudes. They are jointly associated with an increase in public acceptance of more than 20%. He also estimated that vertical trust is critical for carbon tax preferences, but no other policy instruments. Fairbrother (2016) extended the analysis to an international survey, finding a positive effect of political trust on environmental policy support. Tam and Chan (2018) also found that horizontal trust is critical for public policy support rather than climate behavior. Certain studies have focused on a single country. Hammar and Jagers (2006), who researched on Sweden, and Rhodes et al. (2017), who centered their research on Canada, found that vertical trust is particularly important for carbon pricing, but not for environmental regulations. Looking at other dimensions of trust, a meta-analysis of existing studies by Cologna and Siegrist (2020) found that trust in scientists and trust in environmental groups strongly correlate with climate policy support (and friendly behaviors), while associations with trust in industry and general trust measures are weak. Similarly, Shwom etal. (2010) found that trust in the fossil fuel industry tends to have a negative effect on support for most climate policies, while trust in the renewable energy industry is only expected to be associated with support for some regulations. Finally, Dietz etal. (2007) found that trust in universities and scientists are associated with support for all climate policies. 1 On the negative side, Lamb and Minx (2020) find no direct evidence that levels of social trust are linked to climate legislation adoption and the removal of fossil subsidies. 1363 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… Additional Links Between Social Cohesion andAcceptability ofClimate Policies To fully understand the relationship between social cohesion and the acceptability of climate mitigation policies, two additional issues need to be considered. First, climate mitigation may affect social cohesion (Lamb etal. 2020). In fact, some climate mitigation policies lack procedural inclusion in terms of general public participation in decision-making. This can reduce social cohesion, as often happens in energy infrastructure projects such as dams. The second issue relates to the interaction between two attributes of social cohesion: trust and cooperation for the common good (i.e., the environment). The latter means taking part in demonstrations, signing petitions (these two are “stronger” forms of cooperation that oppose current policies), or taking part in an environmental organization (a “softer” form of cooperation). A notable example is the yellow vest protests in France, where cooperation and engagement made it possible to push back climate policies (Douenne and Fabre 2020b). Indeed, trust can be an important determinant of cooperation for the environment. If people trust that the government makes the best decisions, there is no need to demonstrate, and people feel less need to engage and cooperate. This also relates to the more extensive literature on political participation (Tam 2020). There is likewise the possibility that softer and more collaborative forms of cooperation may have a positive relationship with vertical trust compared to stronger and conflicting forms, as softer cooperation includes both vertical and horizontal cooperation (Hasler etal. 2020). In terms of evidence, it has been confirmed that less trust in the government strengthens one’s motivations to act (Tam 2020). Social Protection andClimate Change Mitigation The importance of social protection is linked to the second set of factors affecting public acceptability of climate mitigation policies: the perception of climate policy and its design. This set of factors includes distributional implications, which are important as protests and public opposition arise if climate mitigation policies are deemed unjust and to hurt the poor more (Klenert etal. 2018). Social protection mechanisms can be used to counterbalance negative distributional effects. For instance, green deals push for employment guarantees or productive inclusion programs to address the job disruptions from energy transitions (Malerba and Wiebe 2020). Another link is that the use of cash transfers can counterbalance the higher prices resulting from carbon pricing policies (Malerba et al. 2021). Research has focused mainly on this latter link, showing through simulations that redistributing even just part of the revenues could make carbon pricing progressive and decrease poverty (Vogt-Schilb and Hallegatte 2017; Vogt-Schilb et al. 2019). Looking directly at social acceptability, Levi (2021) estimated that living in a country where revenues from existing carbon prices are distributed back to households increases the acceptance of further increases in carbon taxes, but the effect is small. Kallbekken and Sælen (2011) found that recycling revenues to more narrowly targeted groups seems to increase support for taxation. Conversely, Beiser-McGrath and Bernauer (2019) discovered that recycling carbon tax revenues towards low-income 1364 D.Malerba households decreases support in the US, but has no statistically significant effect in Germany. In “Social Protection and Climate Change Mitigation” section, we explain these findings in more detail. A fairly new but growing body of literature has investigated the broader issue of the development of eco-welfare states (Duit etal. 2016), exploring whether welfare and climate policies are complementary (double-worry) or substitutes (crowding out). Gough etal. (2008) underlined areas for synergy between social and environmental policies, such as the fact that social policies can address inequalities caused by environmental reforms; improvements in infrastructure and housing policies; and the possibility that governments may alter consumer and producer behavior using education and various policy instruments, such as taxation and regulation. However, there can be competition between policies and finances. While climate change has become a new risk and it is an externality (and market failure) where the state can play a great role, an open question remains as to whether people believe that governments should keep their focus mainly on traditional welfare issues. Jakobsson etal. (2017) found that attitudes in the two areas of welfare and climate policies are overall substitutes, but with a small and rarely statistically significant relationship. To explain this finding, Fritz and Koch (2019) found that the simultaneous support of welfare and climate policies follows welfare regime lines, in that such support is the highest among social-democratic countries; a negative relationship was found especially in ex-Soviet Union countries. Otto and Gugushvili (2021) argue that support for eco-social measures will be higher in more affluent countries, as the environment is a normal good (Fairbrother 2012). At the individual level, the endorsement of eco-social measures by low-income groups necessitates that the policies complement—rather than substitute—existing welfare benefits, and that public awareness of the highly unequal social effects of environmental problems is increased. Since citizens’ attitudes towards public policies are partially shaped by self-interest, it is possible that public support for social and climate change policies may not go hand in hand. A critical point of this research is whether the relationship between social protection (and welfare) and the acceptability of climate policies differs among HICs and LMICs, where social goals are even more prioritized. This has not been explicitly explored in the aforementioned studies. Trust, Social Protection andClimate Change Mitigation We now explore the interaction between the three variables of interest. For further evidence on the bidirectional effects between social cohesion and social protection, we direct the reader to the introduction, other articles in this special issue, as well as other literature (Evans and Kosec 2020). This literature shows that the effect of social protection on social cohesion can be both positive and negative (Roelen etal. 2022). One interesting finding in the literature on HICs is that public support for carbon pricing depends on how revenue is used. Earmarking revenues to support further emission reductions was found to be the most preferred option by citizens, followed 1365 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… by direct transfers to help vulnerable groups, and finally a reduction in existing taxes (Carattini et al. 2019; Baranzini and Carattini 2017; Douenne and Fabre 2020a). Earmarking is critical and is strongly linked with vertical trust, as it reflects two voter concerns. The first is a lack of trust in the government; voters do not trust politicians to make good use of revenues, if not specifically earmarked or redistributed back to the population. Baranzini and Carattini (2017) have shown that acceptability increases substantially with earmarking, particularly for environmental purposes, and especially among individuals who tend to distrust the government. Klenert etal. (2018) have also found that in countries with low levels of political trust, the introduction of a carbon price may be more acceptable if revenues are put towards uniform lump-sum or directed transfers. The second concern is doubt about the effectiveness of the environmental policy, and particularly in carbon taxes, which also partially depends on trust in governments. Using tax revenues for additional emission reduction ensures that the tax will be effective and the environmental objective will be met (Sælen and Kallbekken 2011; Baranzini and Carattini 2017). In Germany, Sommer etal. (2022) found that green spending is more popular compared to direct recycling to households, especially among those who are pro-environment and trust the government. Finally, the low push to use carbon tax revenues to lower other taxes is driven by low trust in politicians and fiscal authorities (Carattini etal. 2018). Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms All of these findings may become even more important in LMICs, given existing issues with tax systems and the priority given to social—rather than environmental—goals. This is confirmed by evidence of the removal of fossil fuel subsides in LMICs. In fact, while most of the research on HICs deals with carbon taxes, subsidy removal is a similar policy that may increase the price of goods. In the past decades, many countries have tried to reform fossil fuel subsidies (Rentschler and Bazilian 2017), especially for fiscal reasons. In fact, it has been estimated that fossil fuel subsidies represented around 6.5% of global GDP in 2017 (Coady etal. 2019). In terms of the relationships between social cohesion, social protection, and fossil fuel subsidies, there are two main takeaways from the experience of LMICs. First, the countries undoing reforms have been the ones with higher vertical trust (McCull- och etal. 2021; Skovgaard and van Asselt 2019). Second, many countries have used social protection mechanisms, especially cash transfers, to deal with higher prices and make the reforms successful and acceptable (Dennis 2016; Rentschler 2016). Klenert etal. (2018) have also pointed out the successful cases of Iran and Indonesia and the unsuccessful case of Nigeria. A recent report (Yemtsov and Moubarak 2018) stated that among 28 countries that implemented energy subsidy reforms, the majority used cash transfers. Many of them introduced new programs; others expanded existing ones either horizontally (the base) or vertically (the amount given). 1372 D.Malerba where i is the individual and c is the country. 𝜇c is the random country intercept, which allows each country to have its own average. All individual-level variables were centered by the country mean; therefore, the coefficients measure the withincountry effect. This transformation allows data to be more interpretable—as the within and between effects are separated—and enables us to deal with multicollinearity, endogeneity, and heterogeneity (Bell and Jones 2015). The controls at the individual level are presented in Fig.4. Country-level generalized and vertical trust were also entered as predictors at the country level and were centered on the grand mean (Tam and Chan 2018). Main Results The main results are presented in Table1. Models 1 and 2 (for MICs) and 3 and 4 (for HICs and all the sample) use the average willingness to pay as the main outcome variable. However, Model 1 excludes the interaction between the trust variables and the preferences for the welfare state. All models show that horizontal and vertical trust are positively and significantly related to the acceptability of climate policies, with similar results across the different sets of countries. However, trust in governments is more important in HICs and trust in people is more important in MICs. In terms of social protection, the effect of a stronger role of the state to decrease inequality is positively and significantly associated with climate mitigation AR BG CL LV LT MX PH RU ZA TR -.4-.2 0 .2 .4 Random effect of welfare state support, by country 0 2 4 6 8 10 Rank Fig. 5 Random coefficients for MICs (welfare variable). Source Author 1373 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… policies for HICs (and for the sample as a whole). Therefore, it seems that at the individual level, there is complementarity between preferences for climate and social policies in industrialized countries. This is in line with the results of Fairbrother (2016) and Sivonen and Kukkonen (2021). However, this coefficient is negative and insignificant among the MICs (Models 1, 2). Thus, it seems that the complementarity between climate and social policies does not hold for MICs. One reason could be that eco-social policies are considered as less affordable compared to richer countries; citizens may think that governments and welfare states should prioritize socio-economic development, while the demand for environmental goods increases once more basic needs are met. (Otto and Gugushvili 2021; Jakobsson etal. 2017). Similarly, high levels of poverty and inequality can generate demand for more redistribution; low-income individuals, hit by significant income deprivations in MICs, strongly prioritize social measures over environmental protection This is supported by the further result in Table1 showing that that prioritizing poverty reduction has a negative correlation with support for climate policies, especially in MICs. To better understand this finding, we explored heterogeneity across countries by running a random effects model and comparing the random coefficients of all MICs (Fig.5); these random coefficients show if the effects of support for welfare state on the support from climate policies is statistically significantly different from the mean for each country in the MICs group. We found that the relationship between and support for the welfare state and support for climate policies is negative, especially in post-communist countries. One plausible explanation is that in these countries, environmental issues are less salient (Fritz and Koch 2019; Smith and Mayer 2018), while welfare states remain strong (Jakobsson etal. 2017). However, this is not a complete picture—as Argentina also shows a statistically significant negative coefficient (compared to the average of MICs), while Lithuania shows a positive one. Looking at the interaction between horizontal trust and welfare states (Models 2–4 in Table1), the coefficient is positive and significant for all models, with similar values; thus, higher trust in people increases the support for climate mitigation policies more when support for the welfare state is higher. It may be that horizontal trust implies trust in other citizens participating in the welfare system, paying taxes, and contributing to environmental protection. On the other hand, the interaction of the welfare variable with government trust is negative and marginally significant for MICs, while it is positive and insignificant for HICs. These findings need to be taken with caution as when including also random effects model the interaction for MICs becomes statistically insignificant; however, a negative coefficient may suggest that in MICs, citizens are less supportive of environmental policies and want the government to focus on social issues, especially when they trust politicians. These findings seem to be corroborated by additional analysis (not presented for space reasons), which shows a weak but positive correlation between welfare support and the priority of poverty reduction: people that prioritize poverty push for the welfare state to reduce inequalities. Similarly, we also found a negative correlation between the priority of poverty reduction (and job creation) and support for climate policies. A summary of the effect of generalized and vertical trust as well as its interaction with support for the welfare state on support for climate policies is summarized in Fig.6. 1374 D.Malerba -.15 -.1 -.05 0.05.1 Effects of welfare -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 11.5 2 2.5 3 Trust in people MICs: Trust in people and welfare -.1-.05 0.05.1 Effects of welfare -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 11.5 2 2.5 3 Trust in people MICs: Trust in government and welfare -.05 0.05.1 .15 Effects of welfare -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 11.5 2 2.5 3 Trust in people HICs: Trust in people and welfare -.02 0.02.04.06.08 Effects of welfare -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 11.5 2 2.5 3 Trust in government HICs: Trust in government and welfare Fig. 6 Relationship between trust and welfare by income group. Source Author Table 2 Robustness analysis using original variables on process and taxes Source Author ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 Variables (1) (2) Prices MICs Taxes MICs Individual level Trust in people 0.086*** 0.097*** Trust in government 0.068*** 0.079*** Trust in science − 0.010 − 0.016 Welfare state for inequality − 0.017 − 0.011 Poverty reduction is priority − 0.103*** − 0.073*** Trust people # welfare 0.020** 0.029*** Trust government # welfare − 0.013 − 0.018* Country level Trust in people − 0.262 − 0.175 Trust in government 0.290* 0.352** Observations 10,794 10,794 Number of groups 10 10 1375 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… Table 3 Regressions comparing different outcome variables There are some missing observations for the cooperation variables Standard errors in parentheses Source Author ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) MICs Confrontational HICs Confrontational MICs Collaborative HICs Collaborative Individual level Trust in people 0.006*** 0.014*** 0.005*** 0.014*** Trust in government − 0.001 − 0.007*** 0.003* − 0.000 Welfare state for inequality 0.002 0.011*** 0.002 0.008*** Trust people # welfare 0.001 0.004*** 0.001 0.002 Trust government # welfare 0.002* 0.000 0.001 − 0.000 Constant 0.026 0.097*** 0.024 0.090*** Controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 10,754 23,534 10,698 23,589 Number of groups 10 24 10 24 1376 D.Malerba The other variables included in the regressions show similar findings for both country groups. Table1 shows that the level of education and income position (selfassessed) positively and significantly affect support for climate policies. On the other hand, younger people show higher support, but this is statistically significant only for the sample of MICs. Robustness Analysis andtheEffects ofTrust onCooperation In addition, we performed some robustness checks using single items (paying higher prices or higher taxes), rather than their average, as outcome variables (Table 2, Models 1 and 2). We found qualitatively similar, but slightly different results, which may be due to a labelling issue: overcoming widespread tax aversion (such as carbon taxes) can be obtained by labelling the environmental tax as a fee or simply referring to higher prices (Klenert etal. 2018). Finally, in Table 3, we performed an initial exploration of the relationship between the different aspects of social cohesion, namely cooperation and trust. The results indicate that trust in people is critical for both categories of cooperation (confrontational and collaborative) as well as for both groups of countries. Conversely, trust in government is negatively associated with participation in protests or petitions; this means that this type of confrontational cooperation is linked to distrust in governments (DiGrazia 2014). This latter finding is statistically significant in HICs, but not in MICs. This could be because in HICs, people know that protesting may be better heard by governments. Conversely, trust in government is positively associated with collaborative cooperation, but statistically significant only for MICs. This may be because in MICs, citizens fear government repression, and thus might choose more soft forms of cooperation. Conclusions andPolicy Implications The aim of this study was twofold. The first objective was to summarize the relationship between climate mitigation policies, social cohesion, and social protection. Among all of the relationships examined, the literature has shown strong effects of vertical trust on climate mitigation policies and the importance of earmarking revenues. The second objective of the study was to explore whether these links also hold in the context of LMICs, as current research focuses on industrialized countries. Despite data limitations, our exploratory analysis provides an initial indication that vertical and horizontal trust are critical for the acceptability of climate mitigation policies in LMICs. On the other hand, it seems that preferences for social protection, proxied by preference for the welfare state, are negatively correlated (but not statistically significant) with climate mitigation acceptability, while this relationship is positive and significant for HICs. This may suggest a crowding out between climate and social policies, as well as that social protection is viewed as a tool to primarily address poverty in LMICs. One main implication is that it may be critical to ensure that climate mitigation would not negatively affect social goals and that citizens are aware of this. 1377 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… This difference in findings between LMICs and HICs justifies the need for a research agenda with a specific focus on how to make climate mitigation policies acceptable as well as the role of social cohesion and social protection therein, especially in the current COVID-19 recovery phase. In future research, there is a need to conduct surveys and conjoint experiments in LMICs in order to understand people’s motivations and preferences. In particular, it is crucial to understand how the interaction between climate and social policies shape the acceptance of climate policies (Marquart-Pyatt etal. 2019; Hagmann etal. 2019). This requires the implementation of specific surveys (Davidovic and Harring 2020). Furthermore, current evidence is mainly centered on carbon pricing in a few HICs and a few idealized recycling schemes. In particular, the need to go beyond cash transfers as a complementary policy is apparent—as multiple climate policies are needed and the losers in climate mitigation policies are present across several dimensions, beyond consumers affected by higher prices (Sovacool 2021; Malerba and Wiebe 2020). In terms of policy implications, there are some options that may enhance the positive effects of social protection and social cohesion on the acceptability of climate mitigation policies. Our results showed that in LMICs, it is critical to ensure that climate policies will not undermine socio-economic goals. While research has shown that this is possible, it is also essential to communicate this to citizens by using information and communication strategies (Davidovic and Harring 2020). In fact, some of the most recurrent obstacles to the popularity of carbon taxes are arguably driven by imperfect information: fear of adverse competitiveness and distributional effects, perceived environmental ineffectiveness, and misunderstanding of revenue neutrality. Apart from better information dissemination, another option is to use policy sequencing and commitment devices that reassure the public that the promised use of revenues to be redistributed to households would be maintained (Carattini etal. 2018). This is particularly relevant in countries with low levels of vertical trust. For example, Dominioni and Heine (2019) suggest the use of “antedated cash transfers”, defined as transfers that are distributed electronically before a carbon tax is implemented on visible accounts and are frozen until the day of the tax increase, which is made visible to recipients by displaying the amount of income that is rebated on payslips, tax slips; another option is contributions to social insurance instead of cash transfers. The gradual implementation of climate policies can also be critical, as evidence shows that public opposition may not be persistent. Instead, voter aversion may abate once a policy is implemented and/or a good policy design (e.g., transfers first) is implemented. In summary, if policy design considers how to use social protection and social cohesion, climate mitigation policies may also become more acceptable in LMICs. 1378 D.Malerba Apart from the aforementioned data limitations, the present paper has certain limitations that need to be discussed. First, an issue that was not covered by the present research is the need for industrialized countries to cooperate and lead. For example, promised funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation failed to be delivered. This can also be conceptualized as an issue of international trust, which is a dimension of global social cohesion. Second, the paper and analysis did not focus on vested interests or individual pro-climate behavior, which are other factors that determine the implementation of climate policy. Third, the empirical analysis followed mostly studies that focus on carbon pricing (and cash transfers as the main social protection mechanism to compensate for higher prices), which seems to contradict the notion that other non-market policies will be necessary, especially for LMICs (Finon 2019), and are already more accepted (Carattini etal. 2018; Rhodes etal. 2017; Wicki etal. 2020). More research is required for these non-market policies and needed complementary social protection programs (Rinscheid and Wüstenhagen 2019; Rafaty 2018). Appendix See Table4. Table 4 List of countries Source Author MICs HICs Argentina (AR) Australia (AU) Israel (IL) Bulgaria (BG) Austria (AT) Japan (JP) Chile (CL) Belgium (BE) Korea (South) (KR) Latvia (LV) Canada (CA) Netherlands (NL) Lithuania (LT) Taiwan (TW) Norway (NO) Mexico (MX) Croatia (HR) Portugal (PT) Philippines (PH) Czech Republic (CZ) Slovakia (SK) Russia (RU) Denmark (DK) Slovenia (SL) South Africa (ZA) Finland (FI) Spain (ES) Turkey (TR) France (FR) Sweden (SE) Germany (DE) Switzerland (CH) Iceland (IS) United States (US) 1379 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Andrijevic, M., C.-F. Schleussner, M.J. Gidden, D.L. Mccollum, and J. Rogelj. 2020. COVID-19 recovery funds dwarf clean energy investment needs. Science 370: 298–300. Baranzini, A., and S. Carattini. 2017. Effectiveness, earmarking and labeling: Testing the acceptability of carbon taxes with survey data. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 19: 197–227. Beiser-McGrath, L.F., and T. Bernauer. 2019. Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible? Science Advances 5: eaax3323. Bell, A., and K. Jones. 2015. Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series crosssectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods 3: 133–153. Benveniste, H., O. Boucher, C. Guivarch, H.L. Treut, and P. Criqui. 2018. Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: Uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions. Environmental Research Letters 13: 014022. Bergquist, M., A. Nilsson, N. Harring, and S. Jagers. 2021. Determinants for accepting climate change mitigation policies: A meta-analysis. Research Square. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21203/ rs.3. rs- 333840/ v1. Blankenship, B., J.C.Y. Wong, and J. Urpelainen. 2019. Explaining willingness to pay for pricing reforms that improve electricity service in India. Energy Policy 128: 459–469. Bohr, J. 2014. Barriers to environmental sacrifice: The interaction of free rider fears with education, income, and ideology. Sociological Spectrum 34: 362–379. Burchi, F., M. Loewe, D. Malerba etal. Disentangling the Relationship Between Social Protection and Social Cohesion: Introduction to the Special Issue. The European Journal of Development Research (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41287- 022- 00532-2 Calo-Blanco, A., J. Kovářík, F. Mengel, and J.G. Romero. 2017. Natural disasters and indicators of social cohesion. PLoS ONE 12: e0176885. Carattini, S., M. Carvalho, and S. Fankhauser. 2018. Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes. Wires Climate Change 9: e531. Carattini, S., S. Kallbekken, and A. Orlov. 2019. How to win public support for a global carbon tax. Nature 565: 289–291. Cherng, S.T., I. Cangemi, J.A. Trostle, J.V. Remais, and J.N.S. Eisenberg. 2019. Social cohesion and passive adaptation in relation to climate change and disease. Global Environmental Change 58: 101960. Coady, M.D., I. Parry, N.-P. Le, and B. Shang. 2019. Global fossil fuel subsidies remain large: An update based on country-level estimates. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Cologna, V., and M. Siegrist. 2020. The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 69: 101428. Davenport, M.A., J.E. Leahy, D.H. Anderson, and P.J. Jakes. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management within local communities: A case study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management 39: 353–368. 1380 D.Malerba Davidovic, D., and N. Harring. 2020. Exploring the cross-national variation in public support for climate policies in Europe: The role of quality of government and trust. Energy Research and Social Science 70: 101785. Dennis, A. 2016. Household welfare implications of fossil fuel subsidy reforms in developing countries. Energy Policy 96: 597–606. Dietz, T., A. Dan, and R. Shwom. 2007. Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences*. Rural Sociology 72: 185–214. Digrazia, J. 2014. Individual protest participation in the United States conventional and unconventional activism. Social Science Quarterly 95: 111–131. Dominioni, G., and D. Heine. 2019. Behavioural economics and public support for carbon pricing: A revenue recycling scheme to address the political economy of carbon taxation. European Journal of Risk Regulation 10: 554–570. Douenne, T., and A. Fabre. 2020a. French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies. Ecological Economics 169: 106496. Douenne, T., and A. Fabre. 2020b. Yellow vests, carbon tax aversion, and biased beliefs. HAL-Inria. Drews, S., and J.C.J.M. Van den Bergh. 2016. What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Climate Policy 16: 855–876. Duit, A., P.H. Feindt, and J. Meadowcroft. 2016. Greening Leviathan: The rise of the environmental state? Environmental Politics 25: 1–23. Evans, D., and K. Kosec. 2020. Do cash transfers reduce trust and informal transfers within communities? IFPRI Discussion Paper 1994. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Fairbrother, M. 2012. Rich people, poor people, and environmental concern: Evidence across nations and time. European Sociological Review 29: 910–922. Fairbrother, M. 2016. Trust and public support for environmental protection in diverse national contexts. Sociological Science 3: 359–382. Finon, D. 2019. Carbon policy in developing countries: Giving priority to non-price instruments. Energy Policy 132: 38–43. Fritz, M., and M. Koch. 2019. Public support for sustainable welfare compared: Links between attitudes towards climate and welfare policies. Sustainability 11: 4146. Gentilini, U., M. Almenfi, P. Dale, R. Palacios, H. Natarajan, G.A. Galicia Rabadan, Y. Okamura, J. Blomquist, M. Abels, G. Demarco, and I. Santos. 2020. Social protection and jobs responses to COVID-19: A real-time review of country measures. “Living paper” version 13, September 18, 2020. Gough, I., J. Meadowcroft, J. Dryzek, J. Gerhards, H. Lengfeld, A. Markandya, & R. Ortiz. 2008. JESP symposium: Climate change and social policy. Journal of European Social Policy 18:325–344. Hagmann, D., E.H. Ho, and G. Loewenstein. 2019. Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nature Climate Change 9: 484–489. Hallegatte, S. 2016. Shock waves: Managing the impacts of climate change on poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Hammar, H., and S.C. Jagers. 2006. Can trust in politicians explain individuals’ support for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax. Climate Policy 5: 613–625. Hasler, O., R. Walters, and R. White. 2020. In and against the state: The dynamics of environmental activism. Critical Criminology 28: 517–531. Jakob, M., C. Flachsland, J. Christoph Steckel, and J. Urpelainen. 2020. Actors, objectives, context: A framework of the political economy of energy and climate policy applied to India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Energy Research and Social Science 70: 101775. Jakobsson, N., R. Muttarak, and M.A. Schoyen. 2017. Dividing the pie in the eco-social state: Exploring the relationship between public support for environmental and welfare policies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36: 313–339. Kallbekken, S., and H. Sælen. 2011. Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy 39: 2966–2973. Klenert, D., L. Mattauch, E. Combet, O. Edenhofer, C. Hepburn, R. Rafaty, and N. Stern. 2018. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nature Climate Change 8: 669–677. Klinenberg, E. 2015. Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamb, W.F., and J.C. Minx. 2020. The political economy of national climate policy: Architectures of constraint and a typology of countries. Energy Research and Social Science 64: 101429. 1381 The Effects ofSocial Protection andSocial Cohesion onthe… Lamb, W.F., M. Antal, K. Bohnenberger, L.I. Brand-Correa, F. Müller-Hansen, M. Jakob, J.C. Minx, K. Raiser, L. Williams, and B.K. Sovacool. 2020. What are the social outcomes of climate policies? A systematic map and review of the ex-post literature. Environmental Research Letters 15: 113006. Levi, S. 2021. Why hate carbon taxes? Machine learning evidence on the roles of personal responsibility, trust, revenue recycling, and other factors across 23 European countries. Energy Research and Social Science 73: 101883. Maestre-Andrés, S., S. Drews, and J. Van den Bergh. 2019. Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: A review of the literature. Climate Policy 19 (9): 1–19. Malerba, D., and K.S. Wiebe. 2020. Analysing the effect of climate policies on poverty through employment channels. Environmental Research Letters 16 (3): 035013. Malerba, D., A. Gaentzsch, and H. Ward. 2021. Mitigating poverty: The patterns of multiple carbon tax and recycling regimes for Peru. Energy Policy 149: 111961. Marquart-Pyatt, S.T., H. Qian, M.K. Houser, and A.M. Mccright. 2019. Climate change views, energy policy preferences, and intended actions across welfare state regimes: Evidence from the European Social Survey. International Journal of Sociology 49: 1–26. McCulloch, N., T. Moerenhout, and J. Yang. 2021. Fuel subsidy reform and the social contract in Nigeria: A micro-economic analysis. Energy Policy 156: 112336. Ostrom, E. 2010. A multi-scale approach to coping with climate change and other collective action problems. Solutions 1: 27–36. Otto, A., and D. Gugushvili. 2020. Eco-social divides in Europe: Public attitudes towards welfare and climate change policies. Sustainability 12: 404. Otto, A., and D. Gugushvili. 2021. Determinants of public support for eco-social policies: A comparative theoretical framework. Social Policy and Society. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1474 74642 10003 48. Rafaty, R. 2018. Perceptions of corruption, political distrust, and the weakening of climate policy. Global Environmental Politics 18: 106–129. Rentschler, J. 2016. Incidence and impact: The regional variation of poverty effects due to fossil fuel subsidy reform. Energy Policy 96: 491–503. Rentschler, J., and M. Bazilian. 2017. Reforming fossil fuel subsidies: Drivers, barriers and the state of progress. Climate Policy 17: 891–914. Rhodes, E., J. Axsen, and M. Jaccard. 2017. Exploring citizen support for different types of climate policy. Ecological Economics 137: 56–69. Rinscheid, A., and R. Wüstenhagen. 2019. Germany’s decision to phase out coal by 2038 lags behind citizens’ timing preferences. Nature Energy 4: 856–863. Roelen, K., C. Leon-Himmelstine, and S. K. Kim. 2022. Chicken or Egg? A Bi-directional Analysis of Social Protection and Social Cohesion in Burundi and Haiti. The European Journal of Development Research (2022). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41287- 022- 00524-2. Sælen, H., and S. Kallbekken. 2011. A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway. Ecological Economics 70: 2181–2190. Shwom, R., D. Bidwell, A. Dan, and T. Dietz. 2010. Understanding U.S. public support for domestic climate change policies. Global Environmental Change 20: 472–482. Sivonen, J., and I. Kukkonen. 2021. Is there a link between welfare regime and attitudes toward climate policy instruments? Sociological Perspectives. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07311 21421 990053. Skovgaard, J., and H. Van Asselt. 2019. The politics of fossil fuel subsidies and their reform: Implications for climate change mitigation. Wires Climate Change 10: e581. Smith, E.K., and A. Mayer. 2018. A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries. Global Environmental Change 49: 140–153. Sommer, S., L. Mattauch, and M. Pahle. 2022. Supporting carbon taxes: The role of fairness. Ruhr Economic Papers. Sovacool, B.K. 2021. Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Research and Social Science 73: 101916. Tam, K.-P. 2020. Understanding the psychology × politics interaction behind environmental activism: The roles of governmental trust, density of environmental NGOs, and democracy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 71: 101330. Tam, K.-P., and H.-W. Chan. 2018. Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: Multilevel evidence. Global Environmental Change 48: 182–194. Valente, T.W. 2017. Putting the network in network interventions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 114: 9500–9501.