The following article is authored by Jamil Khan, Kajsa Emilsson and Martin Fritz.

• Data from Sweden shows that levels of public support for eco-social policies vary depending on the particular policy instrument.
• Working time reduction received the most support (50%), followed by a wealth tax (40%); maximum income received much less support (25%) and basic income received the least support (15%).
• To expand public endorsement, eco-social policies should be reframed as feasible alternatives and introduced on a step-by-step basis.
• Public awareness of the links between welfare and environmental efforts should be promoted and policies should incorporate technical solutions in line with the values of people along the entire political spectrum.
   

​

Ecological sustainability and social welfare are two major and integrated challenges for a social-ecological transformation to occur: societies need to stay below critical planetary boundaries, the ecological ceiling, while providing a social floor to meet people’s basic needs (Raworth, 2017). We argue that today’s policies such as environmental taxes or green subsidies are insufficient for achieving this aim. Instead, eco-social policies should be introduced that both improve the ecological situation and lead to sufficient living conditions for all.

Would the population support eco-social policies? Which groups are most in favour of them? Who rejects them? And what are the social characteristics that affect support? To answer these questions, we analysed data from a representative survey in Sweden in 2020 (Khan et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that, in Sweden, support for both environmental policies and welfare provision is high (Fritz and Koch, 2019). Being also a leader in climate policy, the country marks a best-case-scenario for the implementation of eco-social policies.

Our analysis looked into the public support for five eco-social policies: maximum income, wealth tax, basic income, working time reduction and meat tax. Maximum income and wealth tax are policies aimed at restricting over-consumption of the rich (Ripple et al., 2021) and staying below the ecological ceiling by putting a cap on incomes and wealth. Basic income creates a social floor by guaranteeing a minimum income for all citizens (Mulvale, 2019). Ecologically, the basic income reduces dependency on paid labour which contributes to less affluent and material lifestyles. A working time reduction redistributes time from paid labour to non-paid activities that can be political or civic actions helping to provide a social floor. Working less also means reducing material production and facilitates staying below ecological ceilings (Pullinger, 2014). The meat tax aims at shifting consumption from a practice with high climate impact to a more needs based, sufficiency oriented, healthy and low impact consumption (Godfray et al., 2018).

Our findings show that a working time reduction is the most popular eco-social policy in Sweden with around 50% of the respondents supporting it. Wealth tax is supported by 40%. A reason why these policies are supported the most may be that they are familiar in the Swedish context. The wealth tax was in place until 2007 when it was abolished, while working time reduction has been tried locally in some municipalities. Both policies are also on the agenda for political parties on the left-green side. Maximum income and basic income received much less support – with only 25% and 15% favouring the policies and over 50% and 60% rejecting then, respectively. Maximum income has the same aim as a wealth tax but goes further by putting a cap on incomes and is probably seen as more intrusive. The low support for a basic income can be because Sweden has a popular welfare system which people do not wish to replace by another system. A cross-country European study showed that support for basic income was higher in countries with a less generous welfare states (Roosma and van Oorschot, 2019). The meat tax receives support from almost one third of the respondents, which is slightly higher than in previous attitude studies (Nässén and Larsson, 2015).

We find that political ideology is the strongest factor affecting support for eco-social policies. Politically left-oriented people are more supportive of all five policies, while the right-oriented more often reject them. Socio- economic factors, such as income, are of medium importance, with people in lower income brackets tending to be more supportive of policies that have a clear redistributive profile (e.g., wealth tax, maximum and basic income). Finally, knowledge-based factors, such as level of education and knowledge of climate change, have importance only for the meat tax. In this case, more education and knowledge of climate change lead to higher support.

All in all, current levels of support for sustainable welfare and a broad eco-social policy agenda in Sweden is rather limited, although the two more familiar policies receive wider endorsement. We propose a set of strategies for policy makers aiming to attract wider support for eco-social policies among the general public. The first strategy is to support the hitherto small groups in favour of the policies so as to activate a social tipping point mechanism where public opinion will change and eco-social policies are seen as real political alternatives, rather than progressive ideas. A second strategy is to advance step-by-step and build on what Hirvilammi (2020) calls a new virtuous policy cycle of sustainable welfare. By introducing policies one by one, people could adjust and build acceptance for eco-social policies. A third strategy is to ‘transform the issue’ and raise awareness about the links between welfare and environmental efforts. In the context of the meat tax, education about eco-social interdependencies may increase support for eco-social policies. A final strategy is to find common denominators among diverse social groups. While left-oriented people are more supportive of eco-social policies, right-oriented people are more in favour of technical solutions that allow them to keep their wealth. Eco-social policy packages should be designed to include elements of both sides to form compromises that are acceptable to a majority of citizens.

Have you seen?
Protecting the climate without causing energy poverty 
Wanted: a low-carbon and fair reset
Workdays for future? How labour market policies can promote a climate-friendly world of employment
Welfare systems should be made independent of GDP growth 

References

Fritz, M., M. Koch, M., 2019, Public support for sustainable welfare compared: Links between attitudes towards climate and welfare policies. Sustainability, 11, 4146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154146.

Godfray, H.C.J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J.W., Key, T.J., 2018, Meat consumption, health and the environment, Science, 361(6399). DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5324.

Hirvilammi, T., 2020, The virtuous circle of sustainable welfare as a transformative policy idea, Sustainability 12(1), 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010391

Khan, J., Emilsson, K., Fritz, M., Koch, M., Hildingsson, R., Johansson, H., 2022, Ecological ceiling and social floor: Public support for eco-social policies in Sweden, Sustainability Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01221-z

Mulvale, J.P., 2019, Social-ecological transformation and the necessity if universal basic income, Social Alternatives, 38(2), 39-46.

Nässén, J., Larsson, J., 2015, Attityder till klimatskatter på flygresor och nötkött [Attitudes to climate taxes on aviation and beef] in Annika Bergström, Bengt Johansson, Henrik Oscarsson & Maria Oskarson (eds) Fragment. Göteborgs universitet: SOM-institutet.

Pullinger, M., 2014, Working time reduction policy in a sustainable economy: Criteria and options for its design. Ecological Economics, 103, 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.009.

Roosma, F., van Oorschot, W., 2019, Public opinion on basic income: Mapping European support for a radical alternative for welfare provision, Journal of European Social Policy, 30(2), 190-205, https//doi.org/10.1177/0958928719882827.

Raworth, K., 2017, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, London: Random House Business.

Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Gregg, J. W., Lenton, I. P., Eikelboom, J. A. J., Law, B. E., Huo, S., Duffy, P. B., & Rockström, J. (2021). World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021. BioScience, 71(9), 894–898. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab079

….

Jamil Khan is an Associate Professor of Environmental and Energy Systems at Lund University. His research is on environmental governance, policy and implementation studies, renewable energy, sustainable transport, urban climate governance, sustainability transitions and green political theory. 

Kajsa Emilsson is a PhD student at the School of Social Work, Lund University. In her PhD project she explores Swedish residents’ social welfare and environmental attitudes, but also their political strategies to achieve societal transformations and prevent climate change. Her research interest lies primarily in the intersection between social policy and climate change.

Martin Fritz is a PostDoc in the Junior Research Group, Mentalities in flux at the Institute of Sociology, University of Jena. HIs research is on "Imaginaries and social structure in modern circular bio-based societies", includes sociological interest in sustainable welfare and eco-social policy, de- and postgrowth and quantitative social research.

The facts, ideas and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO or any of its partners and stakeholders and do not commit nor imply any responsibility thereof. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this piece do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.