Think Globally, Act Locally: The Determinants of Local Policy Makers’ Support for Climate Policy

Abstract

Although much progress to combat climate change has occurred subnationally, little research examines the policy preferences of local policy makers themselves. To address this gap, we conduct a conjoint experiment on over five hundred elected local policy makers across the United States, including mayors, county executives, and council members. Per our theoretical expectations, we demonstrate that the probability of policy adoption can be increased by strategic design. Most notably, climate-related subsidies and regulations are preferred over taxes and penalties, suggesting efforts to put a price on carbon may not be the most effective political strategy in terms of obtaining support. Partisan endorsements of climate plans also have a large effect, greater in some cases than substantive policy design, consistent with increasing polarization. Most interestingly, there is a significant backlash effect—even among Democratic policy makers—when climate plans are endorsed by only the Democratic Party rather than by neither party or by both parties. While direct economic relief to the public is popular among policy makers, it does not increase support for bolder climate policies. We also uncover salient differences between Democratic and Republican policy makers. For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support delayed implementation and are less likely to support plans with high short-term costs even if the long-term benefits are high. Finally, we conducted an identical replication of our elite experiment among the general public and found policy maker preferences are highly compatible with those of average citizens. Our study provides one of the few causally identified tests of local policy makers’ climate policy preferences.