Search

QC 20220302 Innovationer för hållbart långväga resande – styrmedel, affärsmodeller och teknikpotential

Carbon taxes are frequently advocated as a means of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet their political feasibility remains a challenge. To enhance their political appeal, carbon tax proponents have proposed revenue recycling as a means of alleviating public concern with this instrument's visible costs. Analyzing data from identical survey-experiments administered in the United States, Canada, and Germany, we examine the extent to which returning revenues to the public has the potential to broaden the political acceptability of carbon taxes across ideological and national contexts. While public opinion is sensitive to the cost attributes of carbon taxes, we find that in some cases, opposition to carbon taxes can be offset by a reduction in income taxes. However, these effects tend to be modest in size, limited to some ideological groups, and varied across countries. Moreover, we demonstrate that fairness perceptions are a crucial mechanism linking revenue recycling to carbon tax support in all countries examined.

The outputs of political processes, i.e. policy, reflect rational cost-benefit calculations and power relationships, but are also shaped by the values and beliefs of policy actors, i.e. sovereigns, involved in the decision-making process. Values and beliefs affect how rational analyses and power relationships are understood and valued by sovereigns. This article suggests that understanding sovereigns’ values and beliefs is, however, necessary but insufficient for understanding concrete policy outputs, particularly in complex policy processes characterized by conflicting interests and values. In such cases, sovereigns are forced to prioritize among their values and beliefs. This article proposes a framework for studying how sovereigns prioritize among their values and beliefs. This framework is then used to study a complex policy process ridden with conflicts of interest and value-conflicts, which highlights the value and necessity of studying sovereigns, their values and beliefs, as well as the prioritizations they make among those values and beliefs.

We analyze the importance of legitimacy and compare how drivers of public policy attitudes evolve across the policy process consisting of the input (i.e. the processes forgoing acquisition of power and the procedures permeating political decision-making), throughput (i.e. the inclusion of and interactions between actors in a governance-system) and output (i.e. the substantive consequences of those decisions) stages. Using unique panel data through the three phases of the congestion tax in the Swedish city of Gothenburg, we find that legitimacy is indeed important in explaining policy support. Moreover, we find a lingering effect where support in one phase depends on legitimacy both in the present and in previous phases. Hence, our study takes us one step further on the road to understand the complicated dynamic mechanisms behind the interactions between policy making, policy support and the legitimacy and approval of politicians and political processes. JEL: H11, H23, Z18

Gruvprospektering och gruvetablering kan ge upphov tilllokala konflikter. Syftet med den här studien är att undersökahur berörda aktörer och medborgare ser på fråganom framtida mineralutvinning och gruvetablering, vilketutrymme som finns för lokalt deltagande och inflytandei politik och regelverk, samt möjligheterna att hanteraeventuella konflikter med hjälp av dialog och samråd. Vihar analyserat tre gruvetableringsprocesser på tre olikaplatser i det fjällnära området: järnbrytning i Gállok/Kallak(Jokkmokks kommun), nickelutvinning i Rönnbäck/Rönnbäcken (Storumans kommun) samt guld, koppar ochjärnbrytning i Rakkuri (Kiruna kommun).

"A new structure for decision-making in relation to management of large carnivores is presently being implemented in Sweden through a system of regional Wildlife Management Delegations (WMD). The governing idea is that strengthened regional influence will increase the legitimacy of both the management system and its outcomes. We use this institutional change as a backdrop for analyzing the possibilities to apply deliberative practices to reduce conflict and enhance legitimacy in the management of natural resources. We argue that structures alone do not determine the prospects of deliberative arrangements; the political context (i.e. the characteristics and relationships among participating actors) is equally important. An analytical framework is proposed that merges structural prospects for deliberation in co-management with stakeholder features, capturing the interests and beliefs of the actors involved. We illustrate the application of this framework by analysing original data from three Wildlife Management Delegations. Our findings show that there are significant differences in the beliefs among the actors within the system. Based on similarities in their beliefs, they can potentially form a relatively strong anti-carnivore/pro-WMD-coalition, opposing the pro-carnivore/anti-WMD-beliefs of the nature conservation interest. Furthermore, the structure is designed to meet vital deliberative criteria, yet we point at substantial differences between statutory and effective representation that, as it coincides with diverging beliefs, can affect decision-making. One qualitative criterion for successful deliberation stands out in our study — reasoned debate. The prospects for deliberation in WMDs to reduce conflict levels among opposing interests seem to depend on the capacity for ensuring exchange of reasonable and informed arguments."

Forskningsprojektet har studerat den nya viltförvaltningen i syfte att undersöka om regional samförvaltning kan öka rovdjurspolitikens legitimitet genom ökad samverkan och lärprocesser mellan motstridiga intressen. Studien omfattar tre viltförvaltningsdelegationer och information samlades in genom intervjuer och enkäter vid två tillfällen, under 2010 och 2013. Delegationernas ordinarie ledamöter har svarat på frågor om problemuppfattning, förväntningar och samverkansmönster. Att balansera målet livskraftiga rovdjursstammar med övriga intressen anses vara den största utmaningen och förväntningarna på det nya förvaltningssystemets kapacitet att hantera denna utmaning var i startskedet stora. Tre år senare består stödet för regional samförvaltning men delegationernas svaga mandat lyfts fram som ett betydande problem. Ett fåtal, primärt representanter för naturvårdsintresset som initialt uttryckte tveksamhet inför upprättandet av det nya förvaltningssystemet, anser att inflytandet för delegationerna håller sig på en rimlig nivå. De flesta ledamöter tycker emellertid att det är anmärkningsvärt att delegationerna fått ett så litet inflytande över rovdjursfrågorna. I två av delegationerna är detta förenat med en uttalad besvikelse, särskilt i en delegation där flera ledamöter lämnat arbetet. Viltförvaltningen rymmer konkurrerande koalitioner av aktörer med olika syn på rovdjuren. Samspelet mellan dessa är avgörande för förvaltningens framtid. På kort sikt påverkas kapaciteten att lösa problem av ledamöternas förmåga att förhandla och lära av varandra. På längre sikt är ömsesidig förståelse och skapandet av en gemensam värdegrund, över koalitionsgränserna, nödvändigt för legitimiteten. Den interna processen är avgörande för en sådan utveckling. Ledamöterna beskriver samtalsklimatet i positiva ordalag, präglat av lika möjligheter att uttrycka sig och sakliga diskussioner. Samtidigt är det tydligt att de uttalade brukar- och bevarandeintressena tar stor plats i diskussionerna medan de politiskt tillsatta allmänrepresentanterna intar en betydligt mer undanskymd position. År 2010 ansåg en majoritet av ledamöterna det möjligt att den egna åsikten skulle förändras till följd av deltagandet i förvaltningen. Endast marginella förändringar i synen på viltförvaltning kan skönjas år 2013. Däremot kan tydliga förändringar mot en ökad förståelse för andra intressens perspektiv noteras, vilket kan utgöra ett första steg mot ett ökat lärande. Sannolikheten för att ledamöterna ska närma sig varandra åsiktsmässigt påverkas av vilka koalitioner, dvs. grupper av samverkande aktörer, som finns representerade i delegationerna. Koalitionerna i två av de studerade delegationerna har reformerats över tid. Förändringen kan i en av dessa delegationer tolkas som resultatet av att ledamöter från skilda koalitioner har närmat sig varandra åsiktsmässigt. Studien är ett första steg på vägen mot att svara på frågan om den nya viltförvaltningen bidrar till en mer trovärdig rovdjurspolitik. Resultaten kan informera framtida initiativ att se över det institutionella ramverk som anger spelreglerna för de regionala samförvaltningsorganens arbete. The research project has studied the new wildlife management in order to examine if regional co-management can increase the legitimacy of Swedish carnivore policy through increased collaboration and learning processes between conflicting interests. The study includes three wildlife management delegations and information was collected through interviews and questionnaires on two occasions, in 2010 and 2013. The delegations’ participants answered questions about problem perception, expectations and interaction patterns. This study is a first step towards answering the question whether the new wildlife management will enhance the prospects of a more legitimate carnivore policy. The results can inform future initiatives to revise the institutional framework that governs the regional co-management arrangements. The biggest challenge was considered to balance the political goal of viable carnivore populations and other interests but, in 2010, a majority of the delegates considered wildlife management delegations well placed to deal with the issues they are entrusted to manage. Three years later, in 2013, our analysis shows support for the management system, but the weak mandate is highlighted as a significant problem. A few delegates, primarily representatives of nature conservation interest that initially expressed doubts regarding the new management system, consider the influence of delegation to be adequate. Most participants, however, find it remarkable that the delegations have so little influence over carnivore issues. In two of the delegations, this is associated with a pronounced disappointment, especially in WMD C, where several members left the delegation. Wildlife management accommodates competing coalitions of actors with different views on large carnivores. The probability of belief convergence among the participants in the WMD’s is affected by how coalitions are formed within the delegations, that is, how and with whom actors choose to interact. The interaction within and between these coalitions will be critical for future wildlife management. In the short term, the participants’ ability to negotiate and learn from each other will affect problem solving capacity. In the longer term, mutual understanding and the creation of a common set of values and beliefs across coalitions will be necessary for legitimacy. The internal decisionmaking process is crucial in this regard. The participants describe the discussion climate in positive terms; characterized by equal opportunities to express opinions. Pronounced user and conservation interests, however, dominate the discussions, while the politically appointed representatives are more passive. In 2010, a majority of the participants anticipated that their beliefs might change as a result of them participating in the WMD’s. Although only marginal changes can be noted in 2013, the results nevertheless highlight unambiguous change towards a deeper understanding of other actors’ interests and perspectives, which could be a first step towards enhanced learning. Subsequently, the coalitions in two of the studied WMD’s have been reformed over time, but only in one can these changes be attributed the convergence of beliefs.