Energy transition policies often have distributional effects that could have electoral consequences. I study this issue in the context of a Dutch policy change that increased taxes on household natural gas consumption and redistributed the revenues as subsidies for renewables. Radical right parties were the only source of political opposition. A Differences-in-Differences (DiD) analysis with panel data from 2007-2020 shows that after the policy change renters with individualized utility bills became 5–6 percentage points more likely to vote for the radical right compared to renters with utilities included in their rents. Renters with individualized utility bills also became relatively less sympathetic towards the Green party and more concerned about price increases but they did not alter their left-right self-placements nor their views on immigration or the European Union. A secondary analysis finds similar effects for individuals (including home-owners) who are energy poor. This suggests an emerging economically rooted political cleavage over energy transition policies.
Abou-ChadiT.KrauseW. (2020). The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties' policy positions: A regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 829–847. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000029.
2.
AndersonC. J. (2007). The end of economic voting? Contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.050806.155344.
3.
AndersonS.MarinescuI.ShorB. (2019). Can pigou at the polls stop us melting the Poles?National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26146.
4.
AnsolabehereS.MeredithM.SnowbergE. (2014). Mecro-economic voting: Local information and micro-perceptions of the macro-economy. Economics and Politics, 26(3), 380–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12040.
5.
Ballard-RosaC.MalikM. A.RickardS. J.ScheveK. (2021). The economic origins of authoritarian values: Evidence from local trade shocks in the United Kingdom. Comparative Political Studies, 54(13), 2321–2353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211024296.
6.
BechtelM. M.GenoveseF.ScheveK. F. (2019). Interests, norms and support for the provision of global public goods: The case of climate Co-operation. British Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 1333–1355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000205.
7.
BechtelM. M.LieschR. (2020). Reforms and redistribution: Disentangling the egoistic and sociotropic origins of voter preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa006.
8.
BechtelM. M.ScheveK. F. (2013). Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(34), 13763–13768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306374110.
9.
BernauerT.GampferR. (2015). How robust is public support for unilateral climate policy?Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.010.
10.
BertrandM.DufloE.MullainathanS. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588.
11.
BesterC.ConleyT. G.HansenC. B. (2011). Inference with dependent data using cluster covariance estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 165(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.01.007.
12.
BreetzH.MildenbergerM.StokesL. (2018). The political logics of clean energy transitions. Business and Politics, 20(4), 492–522. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2018.14.
13.
BrozJ. L.FriedenJ.WeymouthS. (2021). Populism in place: The economic geography of the globalization backlash. International Organization, 75(2), 464–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000314.
14.
BuzogányA.ĆetkovićS. (2021). Fractionalized but ambitious? Voting on energy and climate policy in the European parliament. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1918220.
15.
CarattiniS.SteffenK.AntonO. (2019). How to win public support for a global carbon tax. Nature, 565(7739), 289–291.
16.
ChaisemartinC. d.D' HaultfoeuilleX. (2020). Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogeneous treatment effects. The American Economic Review, 110(9), 2964–2996. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181169.
17.
ColantoneI.Di LonardoL.MargalitY.PercocoM. (2022). The political consequences of green policies: Evidence from Italy. In SSRN scholarly paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4048520.
18.
ColantoneI.StanigP. (2019a). The surge of economic nationalism inWestern Europe. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.4.128.
19.
ColantoneI.StanigP. (2019b). The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 936–953. top-cited-VI. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12358.
20.
ColganJ. D.GreenJ. F.HaleT. N. (2021). Asset revaluation and the existential politics of climate change. International Organization, 75(2), 586–610. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000296.
21.
Dalla LongaF.SweertsB.van der ZwaanB. (2021). Exploring the complex origins of energy poverty in The Netherlands with machine learning. Energy Policy, 156, Article 112373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112373.
22.
De ChaisemartinC.D'HaultfoeuilleX. (2022). Difference-in-differences estimators of intertemporal treatment effects. Tech. rep. National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
De VriesC. E. (2018). The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: Changing patterns of party and electoral competition in The Netherlands and beyond. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1541–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1339730.
24.
DinasE.MatakosK.XefterisD.HangartnerD. (2019). Waking up the golden dawn: Does exposure to the refugee crisis increase support for extreme-right parties?Political Analysis, 27(2), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.48.
EgliF.SchmidN.SchmidtT. (2020). Electoral response to the decline of coal mining in the United States. In: SSRN Scholarly Paper 3710589. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3710589.
27.
FeenstraM.MiddlemissL.HesselmanM.StraverK.HerreroS. T. (2021). Humanising the energy transition: Towards a national policy on energy poverty in The Netherlands. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, Article 645624. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.645624.
28.
GautierA.Olivier DeGVerbovenF. (2024). The political economy of financing climate policy—Evidence from the solar PV subsidy programs. Resource and Energy Economics, 77, 101436.
29.
GoetzS. J.DavlasheridzeM.HanY.Fleming-MuñozD. A. (2019). Explaining the 2016 vote for president Trump across U.S. Counties. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 41(4), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppy026.
GreenJ. F. (2021). Does carbon pricing reduce emissions? A review of ex-post analyses. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4), 043004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9.
32.
HarteveldE.Van Der BrugW.De LangeS.Van Der MeerT. (2022). Multiple roots of the populist radical right: Support for the Dutch PVV in cities and the countryside. European Journal of Political Research, 61(2), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12452.
33.
HazlettC.MildenbergerM. (2020). Wildfire exposure increases pro-environment voting within democratic but not republican areas. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1359–1365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000441.
34.
HilbigH.RiazS. (2024). Natural disasters and green party support. The Journal of Politics, 86(1), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/726917.
35.
HoffmannR.MuttarakR.PeiskerJ.StanigP. (2022). Climate change experiences raise environmental concerns and promote green voting. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01263-8.
36.
HuberR. A. (2020). The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environmental Politics, 29(6), 959–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1708186.
37.
HuberR. A.GreussingE.EberlJ.-M. (2021a). From populism to climate scepticism: The role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environmental Politics, 31(7), 1115–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1978200.
38.
HuberR. A.MaltbyT.SzuleckiK.ĆetkovićS. (2021b). Is populism a challenge to European energy and climate policy? Empirical evidence across varieties of populism. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 998–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1918214.
39.
ImaiK.KimS.WangE. H. (2019). Matching methods for causal inference with time-series cross-sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 63(3), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12685.
40.
JahnD. (2021). Quick and dirty: How populist parties in government affect greenhouse gas emissions in EU member States. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1918215.
41.
JettenJ.MolsF.SelvanathanH. P. (2020). How economic inequality fuels the rise and persistence of the yellow vest movement. International Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), 356. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.356.
42.
KimS. E.YangJ. (2021). Gasoline in the voter's pocketbook: Driving times toWork and the electoral implications of gasoline price fluctuations. American Politics Research, 50(3), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211043445.
43.
LachapelleE.KissS. (2019). Opposition to carbon pricing and right-wing populism: Ontario's 2018 general election. Environmental Politics, 28(5), 970–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1608659.
44.
LockwoodM. (2018). Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411.
45.
MargalitY. (2019). Economic insecurity and the causes of populism, reconsidered. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.4.152.
46.
MeijersM. J. (2017). Contagious euroscepticism: The impact of eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration. Party Politics, 23(4), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815601787.
47.
MiddelkoopM.LachapelleE.HarrisonK.Stadelmann-SteffenI. (2018). In.
48.
MiddelkoopM.LachapelleE.HarrisonK.Stadelmann-SteffenI. (2022). Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01268-3.
49.
MildenbergerM.ErickL.KathrynH.IsabelleS. S (2022). Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing. Nature Climate Change, 12(2), 141–147.
OtjesS. (2021). The fight on the right: What drives voting for the Dutch freedom party and for the Forum for democracy?Acta Politica, 56(1), 130–162. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00150-y.
52.
PetriF.BiedenkopfK. (2021). Weathering growing polarization? The European parliament and EU foreign climate policy ambitions. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 1057–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1918216.
SchallerS.CariusA. (2019). “Mapping climate agents of right wing populist parties in Europe”. In.
56.
ScherpenzeelA.KaczmirekL. (2010). True' longitudinal and probability-based Internet panels: Evidence from The Netherlands. In Social and behavioral research and the Internet (pp. 77–103).
57.
Stadelmann-SteffenI.DermontC. (2018). The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: What improves the cost-benefit ratio?Public Choice, 175(1-2), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0513-9.
58.
StefanD.van den BerghJ. C. (2016). What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Climate Policy, 16(7), 855–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240.
59.
SteinmayrA. (2021). Contact versus exposure: Refugee presence and voting forthe far right. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 103(2), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00922.
60.
StokesL.WarshawC. (2017). Renewable energy policy design and framing inuence public support in the United States. Nature Energy, 2(8), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.107.
61.
StokesL. C. (2016). Electoral backlash against climate policy: A natural experiment on retrospective voting and local resistance to public policy. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 958–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12220.
VlekC. (2019). The groningen gasquakes: Foreseeable surprises, complications of hard science, and the search for effective risk communication. Seismological Research Letters, 90(3), 1071–1077. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180368.
64.
VoetenE. (2024). Replication data for: “The energy transition and support for the radical right: Evidence from The Netherlands”. Version DRAFT VERSION. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VR1XZA.
65.
WelschH.BiermannP. (2017). Energy affordability and subjective wellbeing: Evidence for European countries. The Energy Journal, 38(3), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.3.hwel.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
