|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
187656
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Combating climate change requires large economic adjustments with significant distributional implications. To build coalitions of support, scholars and policy makers propose compensating individuals who will bear decarbonization’s costs. What are the determinants of public opinion regarding climate compensation and investment? We theorize that climate policy vulnerability and climate change vulnerability induce support for distinct types of climate policy. Fielding original surveys in the United States and India, we show that people who reside in coal-producing regions prefer compensation for lost jobs. The general public privileges diffuse redistribution mechanisms and investments, discounting compensation to targeted groups. Those who are both physically and economically vulnerable have cross-cutting preferences. Nevertheless, there is considerable support across our samples for policies that compensate different coalitions of climate-vulnerable citizens, in line with theories of “just energy” transition and embedded liberalism. We trace the distinctive compensatory preferences of fossil fuel communities to a logic of shared community identities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
155486
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Most studies of policy interdependence try to observe international policy networks by focusing on the diffusion of a specific policy across countries. Thus, if that policy is not adopted from one country to the next, researchers usually treat that as a sign of weak interdependence and the lack of diffusion. In this article, we challenge the notion that diffusion processes and interdependence entail the same policy diffusing. National governments usually engage in a bundle of diffusing policies at the same time. We argue that they are often pressed to implement the policy adopted in neighboring countries. But, at the same time, their incentive to implement this policy depends, at least in part, on how much they rely on foreign resources. The greater their dependence, the more likely they are to adopt the policy preferences of foreign constituents. Thus, conditional on a neighbor’s pressure to adopt a policy, states may engage in policy alteration—the adoption of an alternative instrument to an internationally diffusing policy. We claim that such policy substitution is especially likely in countries that are less dependent on economic flows, as their governments enjoy more political leeway to turn policy diffusion processes to their advantage. We trace this mechanism using two studies of the diffusion of alternative environmental policies across space and time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
165458
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Political research on social media argues that new channels of technological communication influence political leadership. However, we do not know the extent to which social media affect the power of other authorities—for example, religious leaders—in the secular world. This article focuses on the social media presence of the Pope. I argue that the pontiff uses social media communication to explicitly address certain political issues. Specifically, I claim that his messages on the web tend to be more political when critical world events threaten peaceful international relations and frighten salient religious minorities. I investigated this argument by studying Pope Francis’s statements on Twitter. The analysis indicates that the Pope is more likely to release political tweets during international crises, thus targeting issues that otherwise belong to other secular authorities. At the same time, it “normalizes” the Catholic Church’s power in that it allows the Pope to maintain the Vatican’s long tradition of safeguarding peace and protecting vulnerable populations. These findings have implications for the leadership of the Catholic Church in the modern world and extend to other papacies beyond Francis’s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
170006
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is usually assumed that the cost of abating pollution is the main deterrent of domestic support for international climate cooperation. In particular, some scholars have argued that, due to the burden of pollution abatement, businesses commonly constrain governments, which then take less cooperative positions on global climate agreements. I suggest that this argument needs further qualification: pollution-related costs rarely have unconditional effects on preferences for global climate agreements. Instead, a sector's pollution level is more likely to influence preferences for climate cooperation if mediated by its trade exposure. If pollution is high, firms in high-trade sectors may be less able to absorb climate regulation, and hence they should be more sensitive to climate cooperation. If pollution is low, firms in high-trade sectors may support climate cooperation, because by being more efficient they are more capable of adjusting to regulation. These dynamics should then affect governmental positions on global climate politics. I test my sectoral argument with original data from business statements and national communications at the United Nations climate negotiations. In line with my argument, I find that businesses in trade-open sectors are more likely to oppose climate agreement as their sector's emissions increase. I also find that in countries where high-emission sectors are open to trade, governments have low preferences for climate cooperation. The findings have implications for the domestic politics of environmental agreements and the distributive politics of global public good provision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|