A recent study has shed light on increasing public support in the United States for eco-social policies addressing contemporary ecological and social crises. Conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and the London School of Economics (LSE), the research assessed public backing for four innovative eco-social initiatives: the reduction of working hours to as few as 28 hours per week, the scaling down of fossil fuel production, the provision of universal essential services, and the imposition of limits on advertising for high-emission goods.

Published in the journal Ecological Economics, the study also examined how individual consumption-reduction behaviours—such as adopting plant-based diets, avoiding flights, and opting for sustainable transport methods like walking or cycling—affect support for these policies. Moreover, it examined the effect of presenting these proposals within a broader agenda of societal transformation, encompassing concepts like degrowth, although not explicitly using the term.

Among the most significant findings, the research revealed that, on average, participants preferred these eco-social policies over the existing ones. There was firm support for annual caps on fossil fuel extraction and the introduction of universal healthcare. Additionally, individuals who actively engaged in sufficiency behaviours were more inclined towards supporting ecological policies, especially restrictions on fossil fuel use. However, backing for socially oriented measures, such as reduced working hours and universal healthcare, appeared more variable and dependent on other factors.

The analysis indicated that support for these social policies tended to be higher among individuals who embody eco-social values and possess higher levels of privilege, including those with full-time employment, advanced education, and higher income. Intriguingly, framing the policies within an eco-socialist and post-growth narrative did not diminish support; in some instances, it enhanced it, as observed with universal healthcare.

Despite the mounting demands from scientists and civil society groups for dismantling the fossil fuel industry, policymakers continue to favour a ‘green growth’ strategy. The findings from this study suggest that the U.S. electorate is amenable to policy agendas that reduce reliance on fossil fuels and enhance the quality of life for citizens. Notable among these is the recognition of universal healthcare as a human right—accessible to all irrespective of employment or socio-economic status—and reduced working hours as a means to promote overall well-being.

These policy agendas transcend traditional growth-centric goals to embrace eco-social objectives. The study’s authors advocate for transition plans for polluting industries, which could garner widespread support. “Eco-social policy agendas can protect workers and aid them in transitioning to new jobs that benefit society without harming the planet,” noted Dallas O’Dell, the lead researcher from ICTA-UAB.

However, the study also warns that the levels of privilege among citizens must be considered when promoting individual sufficiency behaviours. O’Dell pointed out, “Encouraging reduced consumption among those with lesser privilege could provoke a backlash against broader policies, particularly those with a social dimension.”

This research paves the way for new communication and mobilisation strategies for a more equitable and inclusive socio-economic transition that enhances well-being and reduces dependency on economic growth. The authors stress the need for further studies to effectively tailor and communicate these policies to spark an eco-social movement that resonates with diverse audiences across all socio-economic levels.

Election results have highlighted a potential contradiction in public opinion. According to Dallas O’Dell, the findings may seem inconsistent with the outcomes of recent elections that saw Donald Trump victorious. It’s important to note that the surveys were conducted when Trump’s campaign was less active, allowing respondents to reflect on the policies discussed in a less politicised environment. Neither the Republican nor Democratic campaigns prioritised concrete policy proposals; instead, they focused on broader ideological narratives.

Consequently, voters’ choices might not directly correlate with their support for the policies discussed in the study. Despite their votes for Trump, many younger voters aligned more closely with eco-social policies focusing on economic and climate concerns, indicating a preference for more significant government intervention in healthcare and student debt relief. This discrepancy underscores the complexity of voter motivations and the need for ongoing dialogue and research into public policy preferences.

More information: Dallas O’Dell et al, Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: A discrete choice experiment, Ecological Economics. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108446

Journal information: Ecological Economics Provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona