Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: why the ‘job-killing’ argument is so persistent and how to overturn it

Francesco Vona

Climate Policy, 2019, vol. 19, issue 4, 524-532

Abstract: Political acceptability is an essential issue in choosing appropriate climate policies. Sociologists and behavioural scientists recognize the importance of selecting environmental policies that have broad political support, while economists tend to compare different instruments first on the basis of their efficiency, and then by assessing their distributional impacts and thus their political acceptability. This paper examines case-study and empirical evidence that the job losses ascribed (correctly or incorrectly) to climate policies have substantial impacts on the willingness of affected workers to support these policies. In aggregate, the costs of these losses are significantly smaller than the benefits, both in terms of health and, probably, of labour market outcomes, but the losses are concentrated in specific areas, sectors and social groups that have been hit hard by the great recession and international competition. Localized contextual effects, such as peer group pressure, and politico-economic factors, such as weakened unions and tightened government budgets, amplify the strength and the persistence of the ‘job-killing’ argument. Compensating for the effects of climate policies on ‘left-behind’ workers appears to be the key priority to increase the political acceptability of such policies, but the design of compensatory policies poses serious challenges.Key policy insights Public perception of, and support for, climate policies is substantially reduced in the presence of large negative shocks, especially job losses. Climate policies can be perceived as negative for employment, especially in areas where polluting industries represent a large share of employment and in occupations and sectors already damaged by globalization and automation. Policymakers should distinguish between small and large distributional effects of climate policies, and find the appropriate combination of revenue recycling schemes, industrial and retraining policies as well as compensation packages to increase the support for such policies.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (38)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2018.1532871 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: why the ‘job-killing’ argument is so persistent and how to overturn it (2019)
Working Paper: Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: why the ‘job-killing’ argument is so persistent and how to overturn it (2019)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:19:y:2019:i:4:p:524-532

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/tcpo20

DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1532871

Access Statistics for this article

Climate Policy is currently edited by Professor Michael Grubb

More articles in Climate Policy from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().