打印

作者

Aaron Deslatte

来源

URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW,Vol.59,Issue5,P.

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

摘要

Climate and sustainability challenges in the 21st century have given rise to re-thinking the role of local governments in confronting larger-than-local challenges (Deslatte and Stokan 2019; Portney 2013). For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report devoted a chapter of its “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” section to the adaptive role that cities and local governments will have to play to guard against the worst impacts of climate change (Dodman et al. 2022). Across the European continent, early indicators suggest a majority of committed cities are meeting short-term goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions primarily through local actions to achieve energy efficiencies (Hsu et al. 2020). In the United States, a highly partisan-divided Congress managed to pass with some bipartisan support the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in 2021, allocating more than $300 billion to climate, transit and resiliency-related programs, requiring local and regional policy and implementation actions.While urban studies have devoted significant attention to the climate-related motives and actions of city policymakers, less focus has been directed to the connecting cognitive architecture of citizen beliefs and preferences (Deslatte 2019). The notion that discerning citizens can guide governmental policies from the ballot box is critical to democratic anchorage and government accountability (Achen and Bartels 2017). However, anthropogenic climate change has become a weaponized partisan issue, and surveys show a growing partisan tribalization over the scientific consensus surrounding its causes and consequences (Bolsen and Druckman 2018; Egan and Mullin 2017). This reliance on partisan or ideological reasoning can extend beyond policy choices. Political science and public management researchers have found partisan identity and ideological predispositions can shape how citizens perceive government performance, and that performance information may be systematically misinterpreted based on such prior beliefs (Baekgaard and Serritzlew 2016; James and Van Ryzin 2017).Empowering local governments to take broader climate and sustainability actions is one potential avenue for addressing such polarization. Scholars have suggested that issue frames which communicate the perceived efficacy of climate action and local benefits may be able to partially mitigate partisan motivated reasoning (Bayes, Bolsen and Druckman 2020; Bolsen and Shapiro 2018; Merzdorf, Pfeiffer and Forbes 2019). Aligning intergenerational concerns and jurisdictionally targeted policies offers the promise of matching the scale of problems with governmental boundaries via tangible actions addressing housing, infrastructure, transit and energy-efficiency. Early progress has given rise to a view among some policy elites that cities are even “leading the way” in tackling pernicious, interrelated challenges of climate, environmental justice, resilience and racial inequality (Kona et al. 2018; Kousky and Schneider 2003; Kuramochi et al. 2017; US Conference of Mayors 2020). In many ways, this expression mirrors the resurgence of “new localism” or “new municipalism,” which envisions reinvigorating local governments to play a more deterministic role in achieving economic, social and environmental change (Hinkley and Weber 2021; Katz and Nowak 2018).Countering this optimism, many urban scholars have cautioned that cities remain subservient to often-hostile state governments, operate under conditions of fiscal austerity, and face idiosyncratic internal political, social and environmental challenges (Kim and Warner 2016; Deslatte and Swann 2017; Woodruff et al. 2022). Another complicating factor is the homogeneity and population sorting which has produced race- and income-segregated American metropolitan regions (Trounstine 2018). Many of the sustainability-related actions local governments can take (such as energy-retrofitting housing or building green infrastructure) produce localized, distributional benefits and costs (Stokan, Deslatte and Hatch 2021). Smart growth, energy efficiency and social equity investments can be framed as responses to different types of problems and distribute public goods or benefits unequally (Fiorino 2010; Krause 2011; Portney 2013). This raises the potential that classic urban goal conflicts and collective-action dilemmas surrounding housing, transportation and economic development can fuel outgroup discrimination and influence citizen support for broader sustainability efforts (Deslatte 2020).This study examines this interplay of citizen ideology with framing intended to emphasize efficacy of local climate action. I posit that citizens will be more supportive of local climate and sustainability efforts when the benefits (i.e., high program performance) are realized by the local government (and by extension, taxpayers). This deference to locally directed actions springs from the predisposition for decentralization of political authority widely attributed to localism (Fitzpatrick, Pawson and Watts 2020; Katz and Nowak 2018). In other words, localism here is conceptualized as a directional goal of motivated reasoners which manifests in preferences for local production and consumption of resources which may feed into social identity, cohesion and shared community values. I hypothesize that support for local government continuation of such climate programming will strengthen in the face of both cues of political conflict at the federal level and the provision of performance information intended to impact the perceived efficacy of local government climate action. This “motivated localism” hypothesis is derived from political psychology research on motivated reasoning processes and the potential importance of issue frames (Bayes, Bolsen and Druckman 2020; Bayes and Druckman 2021; Bolsen, Druckman and Cook 2014), as well as public administration research on citizen perceptions of government performance (Christensen et al. 2018; Nielsen and Moynihan 2017; Olsen 2017a).In three online survey experiments, I exploit hypothetical scenarios of local sustainability efforts through the U.S Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program to explore the effects of partisan conflict and local performance framing on citizen support. The results extend our current understanding of how citizens view the merits of intergovernmental programs, particularly in the face of partisan signaling from political elites. Citizens display a nuanced view of federal and local efforts, favoring local involvement in traditional community-based problems. However, citizens are more likely to favor continuation of climate-related programs across all three experiments in the face of high performance and politicization at the federal level. With a dearth of behavioral research considering the intergovernmental dynamics of sustainability performance, the findings hold important implications for policy design and management as local governments assume a larger role in responding to climate change.Motivated Reasoning, Framing and LocalismMotivated reasoning is a psychological theory extensively used by political scientists to explain partisan polarization on topics such as climate change (Bayes and Druckman 2021). The core of the theory is that human beings evaluate new information and form beliefs in pursuit of either directional or accuracy goals (Kunda 1990; Taber and Lodge 2006). A directionally motivated reasoner seeks out information which conforms with prior beliefs and avoids or counter-argues against disconfirming information (Lodge and Taber 2013). Through an emotion-laden process, they may more readily accept confirmatory information and challenge information threatening prior beliefs as a means for resolving cognitive dissonance (Van Bavel and Pereira 2018). This largely unconscious process allows them to arrive at a conclusion and resolve anxiety surrounding threatening information. Accuracy motivated reasoners may make a deliberative effort to arrive at an accurate conclusion and may operate when attempting to reach a broader understanding independently of prior considerations (Baumeister and Newman 1994; Kunda 1990). While the literature on partisan motivated reasoning is voluminous, it has only recently begun unpacking which directional goals underlie why individuals may seek to preserve prior beliefs (Bayes and Druckman 2021). Some of the candidate explanations include a need to preserve social identity or membership in a group (Kahan 2015), social consensus with friends or family (Kobayashi 2018), or a moral belief system (Wolsko, Ariceaga and Seiden 2016).One method proffered to mitigate the effects of motivated reasoning on climate beliefs is framing. Framing involves emphasizing particular aspects of an issue or topic in communication so as to make them more salient (Merzdorf, Pfeiffer and Forbes 2019). In practice, framing- whether by the media, political elites, or researchers - often involves de-emphasizing or omitting some potentially salient considerations in order to emphasize others and thereby influence beliefs, attitudes and behavior (Chong and Druckman 2007; Wiest, Raymond and Clawson 2015). Framing of climate change in the news media over the last three decades has featured a variety of emphases, such as focusing on scientific consensus versus uncertainty, economic benefits versus costs, moral or ethical considerations, national security, environmental consequences, the increased potential for catastrophic events and impacts on public health, among others (Feldman, Sol Hart and Milosevic 2017; Nisbet and Fahy 2015; O’Neill et al. 2015). There is no clear consensus on which types of frames generally induce more accuracy-directed reasoning, in part because the underlying motivations for directional goals (i.e., group identity protection, social consensus, value affirmation) remain less understood (Bayes et al. 2020). However, climate communications research does suggest that messaging strategies which emphasize the perceived efficacy of actions taken to address climate change (Hart and Feldman 2016), along with the risk of local impacts compared to global ones (Wiest, Raymond and Clawson 2015) may help convince respondents that either they personally or the government are 1) capable of achieving desired outcomes related to climate mitigation or adaptation, and 2) face more serious risks to their own communities than previously believed (Merzdorf, Pfeiffer and Forbes 2019).The concept of localism presents an unexplored lens through which to view motivated reasoning and framing processes. Much of the evidence underlying motivated reasoning processes is rooted in social identity theory, which holds individuals define themselves through membership in groups (i.e., American, woman, Republican, Black, lawyer). The influence of such coalitional memberships are thought to be a product of human evolution, evidenced by studies from neuroscience which observe neural responses when the brain represents political affiliations and reaches partisan political judgments (Jost and Amodio 2012; Westen et al. 2006). Such motivated social cognition functions as a means of implicit emotion regulation when aspects associated with a particular social identity are made salient (Van Bavel and Pereira 2018; Xiao, Coppin and Van Bavel 2016). Localism has been described in literatures such as planning and sociology as a form of group identity associated with civic pride (Collins 2016), in which preferences are manifested for local self-determination and self-reliance (Erder 1999; Griggs and Howarth 2008; Nadel-Klein 1991; Veg 2017). In the U.S. context, localism has been associated with NIMBYism, ingroup protection, and social exclusion where existing community members (i.e., White, affluent, homeowners) may seek to deny benefits to outgroup members or admission to new entrants (i.e., Black or Brown, lower-income, renters) via land-use regulations (Trounstine 2018). However, the so-called ‘New Localism’ as applied to cities in the post-Great Recession and COVID-19 eras has highlighted a strengthened belief system or narrative of enhanced local autonomy, policy pragmatism and innovation in responding to urban problems (Katz and Nowak 2018; Kim and Warner 2016). While this view is not without its critics (Hinkley and Weber 2021), the sheer volume of local governments committing to climate action, social equity and sustainability more broadly suggests the phenomena may reflect an emerging or strengthening local social identity which can facilitate both reduced psychological distance of climate threats and stronger feelings of efficacy related to solutions (Beveridge and Naumann 2021). Theoretically, “localism” could agglomerate one or more civic identities which may ameliorate or supplant partisan motivated reasoning in the face of frames which emphasize the capabilities of local governments to act effectively (Deslatte 2019). In particular, it is possible that localism may play a stronger role in influencing local support in the face of heightened political conflict at the federal level when the stakes of such conflict are made salient.A challenge to democratic governance is that motivated reasoning processes can be rooted in negative perceptions of the public sector (Goodsell 2003; Hall 2002; Milward and Rainey 1983). A directional goal may lead the reasoner to accept confirming information more easily than evidence which challenges ingrained party orthodoxy or beliefs about government inefficiency or ineptitude (Marvel 2016). Stories of failed social programs or bureaucratic ‘red tape’ are easily consumed when they conform to mental associations between government and ‘wastefulness.’ But government success stories are harder to swallow, and prompt the reasoner to challenge, dismiss or avoid them (Jerit and Barabas 2012; Redlawsk 2002; Sweeny et al. 2010), given the dim views Americans generally hold for government competency and integrity (Kettl 2016; Lee and Van Ryzin 2018). For instance, citizens demonstrate motivated reasoning when they discount the efficiency of public versus private organizations (Hvidman and Andersen 2016), or in politicized areas such as the U.S. Affordable Care Act (James and Van Ryzin 2017).Local governments may still possess some advantage here. Political science research on federalism has suggested that citizen satisfaction with government overall may shape beliefs about a specific level of government (Schneider, Jacoby and Lewis 2011). Although evidence is mixed over whether the public generally considers intergovernmental implications when assessing specific policy areas (Jacobs 2017; Schneider, Jacoby and Lewis 2011), environmental policy is a notable exception. Citizens seem to demonstrate nuanced beliefs toward federal, state and local government responsibilities for environmental protection and natural resource management (Konisky 2011). Modern environmental policies have become increasingly tailored to allow states and local governments greater flexibility in the scope and implementation of activities (Conlan and Posner 2016). This increases the burden on citizens tasked with assessing performance that may vary by jurisdiction or depend on intergovernmental cooperation. This problem is compounded if prior beliefs about government competencies and the proper assignment of responsibility for environmental policies hinders citizens from accurately assigning blame or failure for intergovernmental efforts.Climate action and sustainability have the potential for either leveraging the intergovernmental nature of such policies or further clouding them in complexity. Goal ambiguity, for instance, can result as officials define the concepts differently, and set different priorities – such as short-term energy efficiency gains versus equity goals or global benefits from reducing carbon emissions (Zeemering 2009). The inherent ambiguity surrounding urban climate action makes it ripe for directional reasoning, whether that is through the prioritization of differing goals by elected officials (Christensen et al. 2018), or the cherry-picking of confirming performance information by citizens (Jilke 2018). Conversely, the proliferation of sustainability-related policies and programs at the local level over the last two decades also presents opportunities for framing climate action in ways which make risks and rewards more salient and impact the beliefs of citizens that local climate action can deliver localized benefits (Farmer 2022; Hawkins et al. 2016; Park and Krause 2020; Portney 2013). To address the potential, this study leverages a widely utilized U.S. intergovernmental environmental program to examine citizen support at the local level.