As popular concerns about climate change grow, political discussions increasingly centre around environmental issues. Unsurprisingly, governments have a strong interest in better understanding public attitudes toward environmental policies. In this context, the paper draws on moral economy theory to explain more fully how attitudes toward welfare state support can affect attitudes toward environmental policy support.
We introduce a moral economy of environmental policies to capture the attitudinal framework surrounding environmental policies. An analysis of Wave 8 of the European Social Survey data is carried using multilevel modelling.
Findings reveal two mechanisms linking welfare attitudes and environmental policy support. First, individuals who support welfare states also support environmental policies. This behaviour aligns with the synergy hypothesis. Second, in countries with strong welfare state support, individuals are less inclined to turn their climate change concerns into support for environmental policies. This behaviour aligns with the crowding out hypothesis. The findings allow researchers to better discern the mechanisms connecting welfare attitudes and environmental policy support. Policymakers in democratic welfare states can use them to decide on how best to address both policy areas during elections and in their everyday work.
This article clarifies the connection between welfare attitudes and environmental policy support, which has previously been perceived as complex. It demonstrates that there are in fact two mechanisms at play, each following a different dynamic.
Introduction
As public concerns about climate change grow, public attitudes on environmental policies have received growing scholarly attention (e.g. Bohnenberger, 2023; Wetts, 2023). Environmental policies encompass a range of measures to protect the environment, such as combating climate change, reducing environmental pollution and maintaining biodiversity (Adelle et al., 2018). In democratic countries, governments have a strong interest in understanding public attitudes for environmental policies. Strong citizen support for environmental policies legitimise governments' pursuit of these policies which can then yield electoral payoffs (Gerdes et al., 2023). Conversely, a lack of political support can lead to an undesired political backlash where citizens oppose such policies when they are needed most (Gazamararian and Tingley, 2023).
Against this backdrop, a burgeoning literature seeks to explore public attitudes towards environmental policies. Previous research shows that a combination of numerous factors influences who supports environmental policies. First, socio-demographic characteristics play a role. Higher support exists among women, highly educated individuals, financially stable individuals and younger cohorts (Fritz and Koch, 2019; Otto and Gugushvili, 2020; Parth and Vlandas, 2022). Second, attitudes and political orientations exert an influence. Individuals with a positive attitude towards the environment and a politically left orientation support environmental policies in particular (Busemeyer and Baiser-McGrath, 2023; Kaiser et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023; Sivonen, 2020). Third, welfare state features play a role (Yuda and Mahaswa, 2025). Welfare state support can increase environmental policy support — or, in some cases, reduce it. These contradictory insights on the influence of the welfare state are captured in the synergy hypotheses and the crowding-out hypothesis respectively (Parth and Vlandas, 2022; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021; Sjöstrand, 2024). This contradiction has led to some research positing that this influence is complex where further research is needed to explain the mechanism linking welfare state support and environmental policy support (Parth and Vlandas, 2022). The present article draws on moral economy theory to help fill this gap in knowledge.
Moral economy theory explains actions and exchanges with moral considerations (Whitehead and Crenshaw, 2014). It examines what individuals consider fair and just, and how these perceptions steer their behaviours (Komp-Leukkunen and Im, 2019). In social policy research, it posits that individuals share persistent cultural ideas of what a good life is, and how welfare states should facilitate it (Frederiksen, 2025; Sachweh, 2012). These cultural ideas explain support for individual policies, such as retirement regulations or immigration policies (Ambrosini, 2023; Prinzen, 2017). Additionally, they explain support for how policies are reformed (Frederiksen, 2025). A key insight is that the shape of the moral landscapes and policy preferences resulting from them differ between countries. A moral setup as such does not necessarily lead to a specific policy preference. Instead, the cultural sphere surrounding the individuals influences what policy preferences they derive from their moral setups (Frederiksen, 2025; Taylor-Gooby et al., 2019). When transferred to environmental policies, this pliability of sensemaking suggests that positive attitudes towards the environment need not necessarily translate to higher environmental policy support. Notably, welfare state attitudes might interfere with this assessment, thereby creating the complex interplay of welfare state attitudes and environmental policy attitudes that previous research has observed (Parth and Vlandas, 2022; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021; Sjöstrand, 2024). This study investigates this explanation in more detail.
We explore how welfare attitudes interfere with the effect of environmental attitudes on environmental policy support. For this purpose, we conducted an analysis of micro-level data from Wave 8 of the European Social Survey. In doing so, we answer two research questions: (1) How far do welfare attitudes influence environmental policy support? The answer to this question maps the direct influence of welfare attitudes at the individual and country levels. (2) How far do welfare attitudes moderate the influence of environmental attitudes on environmental policy support? The answer to this question highlights the more complex means by which welfare attitudes can influence environmental policy support, and it is studied at the individual and country levels. Collectively, the findings demonstrate how a moral economy perspective can be useful to understand citizens' support for environmental policies.
The moral economy of environmental policies
The moral economy of environmental policies can help us better understand the conditions under which individuals support environmental policies. The moral economy perspective understands individuals as participants in economic activities, where exchange processes take place. These exchanges can be of any kind of good or service, whether one is aware of it or not (Adelman, 2020; Carrier, 2018). When it comes to the environment, such exchanges are also manifold and omnipresent. For example, they include deliberate acts of individuals using wood and stones to build houses. However, they also include individuals breathing in oxygen or swimming in the ocean without further reflecting on these activities. An important characteristic of such exchanges between individuals and the environment is that individuals cannot forgo them (Ki-Moon, 2021). We cannot exist without breathing, eating, or drinking water. We also have to resort to the environment for materials for clothing and shelter. Thus, the moral economy of environmental policies contains constant and indispensable exchange.
In this exchange, current and future generations are the exchange partners. At first glance, the exchange partner should be the environment as such. However, it does not function as a typical exchange partner in the moral economy because it is not an equal, and cannot make suggestions or negotiate (e.g. Ambrosini, 2023; Carrier, 2018). Yet, whatever individuals consume from the environment affects other individuals, who might have also wanted to consume it. It affects the remaining population, who might have wanted to consume the resources at the same time. Additionally, it affects our future selves and future generations, who might want to consume the resources at a later point in time (Albers, 2017; Caney, 2018). Current and future generations constitute a typical exchange partner in moral economies. They are equals within the exchange, they have needs and preferences, and their interests can be balanced against that of the other exchange party (e.g. Ambrosini, 2023; Carrier, 2018). The interests of these generations have been increasingly considered an integral part of sustainable development recently. The United Nations defined sustainable development as a process in which current generations can meet their needs while also giving future generations the possibility to do so (United Nations, 1987). Current social policy research regularly resorts to this principle, using it as a yardstick for assessing policies (e.g. Dhakal and Burgess, 2021; Koch, 2022).
While the need for a sustainable exchange with the environment is largely acknowledged, the setup of the exchange remains contested. An important reason for this is that opinions about the setup of the exchange are tied to the setup of welfare states – and these welfare state setups differ. Esping-Andersen (1990a, 1990b) explains that modern welfare states use different mechanisms for creating welfare: the state, the market and the family. Those welfare states favoring the state heavily rely on governmental action to solve problems. Welfare states favoring the market hold back on governmental activities. Instead, they prefer having the market forces of supply and demand create solutions to societal problems. Finally, those welfare states favoring the family let citizens, with their families, take the lead on solving societal problems. Governmental policies only play a supporting role in these issues. Hassel and Palier (2023) and Tkacova et al. (2024) show that countries change their preferences for the mechanisms over time, leading to a fluctuation of their presence and an overall convergence of countries towards a mix of all three mechanisms.
Preferences for one mechanism over the others are culturally embedded, drawing on how individuals make sense of the world around them, and how they have resolved issues in the past (Alesina and Glaeser, 2004; Braithwaite, 2020). Thereby, they create path dependencies that funnel established cultures and institutional traditions into support for new policies — such as environmental policies. The synergy hypothesis builds on this mechanism, claiming that social and environmental policies reinforce one another (Parth and Vlandas, 2022; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021). The crowding out hypotheses likewise build on this mechanism but differs by suggesting that social and environmental policies negatively impact one another (Parth and Vlandas, 2022). Such opinion patterns are key to the moral economy of environmental policies. They entail that individuals make sense of environmental policies within their cultural framework. They wonder not only how the environment should be protected, but also how this should best be approached. As a result, dedication to environmental protection does not always need to generate support for environmental policies. Instead, it could also lead to support for market mechanisms, activities of citizens and families, and civil society action to pursue this goal. In other words, the moral economy of environmental policies underlines that lacking support for environmental policies does not necessarily signal lacking support for environmental protection.
Tracing the mechanisms behind the moral economy of environmental policy
Welfare attitudes have been shown to play an important role in support for environmental policies. However, their influence has been characterized as complex, bringing more than a simple explanation to public debates (Parth and Vlandas, 2022). Rather, they have the power to modify assessments, putting them into a context rich with ascriptions and behavioural guidelines (Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021). Thus, welfare attitudes can frame considerations about environmental policies.
The most straightforward influences of welfare attitudes are when they directly affect support for environmental policies. Numerous studies have shown factors with such direct influences. One such factor is environmental attitudes which affects environmental policy support (e.g. Gerdes et al., 2023; Kaiser et al., 2023). This is driven by matching preferences where individuals seek to align their views on environmental policies with their views on the environment. Other factors include gender and education. Women and individuals with higher education are typically more supportive of environmental policies (Fritz and Koch, 2019; Khan et al., 2023; Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2019). There is some disagreement on the influence of age: many find increasing age to lower support (e.g. Khan et al., 2023; Sivonen, 2020), while Marquart-Pyatt et al. (2019) find it to increase support. Lübcke (2022) provides a possible explanation for the socio-demographic stratification in views on environmental policies by showing that climate change denial is also more common among less educated older males. Such denial can lower the commitment to environmental protection, which, in turn, reduces the support for environmental policies (Gerdes et al., 2023; Kaiser et al., 2023). Several studies also document that left-right political ideology affects environmental policy support, with individuals leaning toward the left side of the spectrum being more supportive of such policies (Busemeyer and Baiser-McGrath, 2023; Kaiser et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023). Crucially, Fritz and Koch (2019) add that support for welfare policies can affect support for environmental policies because individuals match their preferences for environmental policies to their extant welfare preferences, thereby imagining an overall policy setup that best supports their interests and resources (Mandelli, 2023). This explanation points to a potential synergy between welfare state attitudes and environmental policy support. Hypothesis 1 proposes:
The stronger an individual's welfare preferences, the more supportive they are of environmental policies.
This synergy might also apply at the country-level, where societies with stronger welfare preferences have more trust towards the state. They expect better outcomes from governmental activities, such as welfare policies (Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021). Accordingly, Hypothesis 2 suggests:
The stronger the welfare preferences in a country, the more supportive individuals are of environmental policies.
Yet, welfare state attitudes may also influence environmental policy support in a less straightforward manner. These attitudes can modify how individuals assess environmental policies; they may amplify or diminish citizens' support for environmental policies (Parth and Vlandas, 2022). On the one hand, individuals keep track of the resources they have at their disposal, trying to ensure that these resources are allocated in the most useful way. Since resources are limited, a competition between welfare policies and environmental policies can ensue (Mandelli, 2023; Sjöstrand, 2024). Thus, when welfare state attitudes are considered, environmental support might not necessarily translate into support for environmental policies anymore. This view aligns more with the perspective that welfare state attitudes may crowd out environmental policy support. Hypothesis 3 states:
The more supportive individuals are of welfare policies, the weaker the effect of environmental attitudes on support for environmental policies.
On the other hand, individuals' preferences can be shaped by the society surrounding them. The prevalent culture shapes their worldviews, and extant welfare state structures can shape which policy solutions they can most easily imagine (Mandelli, 2023). Thus, living in a country with strong support for welfare policies can nudge individuals to equally favor strong state action when other challenges arise — such as environmental ones (Parth and Vlandas, 2022; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021). This view aligns more with the perspective that welfare state attitudes can synergise with environmental policy support. Hypothesis 4 suggests:
The more supportive countries are of welfare policies, the stronger the effects of their citizens' environmental attitudes on support for environmental policies.
Material and methods
Data
As our interest lies in understanding variations in citizens' attitudes on environmental policies, we use and analyse cross-national individual-level survey data from Wave 8 of the European Social Survey, collected in 2016 and 2017. The European Social Survey is collected biennially. It contains a permanent module of questions and a rotating module that varies with each round. The rotating module of Wave 8 covers environmental attitudes (Poortinga et al., 2018). This round contains data on 39,272 individuals from 21 European countries: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. We performed listwise deletion of 7,357 cases with missing values on any variable. All variables had less than 5% missing observations, except for the self-reported left-right political ideology (12.07%). Thus, our sample is biased against individuals who did not respond to this question. The average correlation between observations with non-responses is minimal across all variables (rs = 0.05). The final sample consists of 31,915 observations. Table 1 shows the case numbers per country.
Case numbers and sample descriptive statistics, per country
| Country | Number of cases | Explained and explanatory variables (mean) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental policy support | Environmental concern | Welfare attitudes | ||
| Austria | 1,702 | 7.88 | 3.07 | 7.58 |
| Belgium | 1,666 | 7.47 | 3.20 | 7.22 |
| Czech Republic | 1,788 | 6.61 | 3.15 | 7.62 |
| Estonia | 1,648 | 6.80 | 2.71 | 7.72 |
| Finland | 1,804 | 7.88 | 3.08 | 7.78 |
| France | 1,843 | 7.18 | 3.21 | 7.15 |
| Germany | 2,668 | 7.93 | 3.37 | 7.42 |
| Great Britain | 1,658 | 7.09 | 2.97 | 6.89 |
| Hungary | 1,168 | 7.63 | 3.12 | 7.22 |
| Iceland | 783 | 7.15 | 3.13 | 8.26 |
| Ireland | 2,086 | 6.75 | 2.85 | 7.12 |
| Italy | 1,483 | 7.45 | 3.29 | 8.00 |
| Lithuania | 1,198 | 6.80 | 2.93 | 8.20 |
| Netherlands | 1,464 | 7.65 | 3.04 | 6.69 |
| Norway | 1,457 | 7.83 | 3.00 | 7.93 |
| Poland | 1,230 | 7.05 | 2.82 | 7.42 |
| Portugal | 1,095 | 7.38 | 2.58 | 8.15 |
| Slovenia | 1,003 | 7.96 | 2.93 | 7.72 |
| Spain | 1,429 | 7.34 | 2.59 | 8.07 |
| Sweden | 1,410 | 8.10 | 2.86 | 7.63 |
| Switzerland | 1,332 | 8.17 | 2.98 | 6.55 |
| Total | 31,915 | 7.63 | 3.07 | 7.52 |
Variables
Our dependent variable captures support for state action on environmental policies. This variable is an index of three variables: (1) “To what extent are you in favor of or against the following policies in [country] to reduce climate change? Using public money to subsidize renewable energy such as wind and solar power.” (2) “To what extent are you in favor of or against the following policies in [country] to reduce climate change? Increasing taxes on fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal.” And (3), “To what extent are you in favor of or against the following policies in [country] to reduce climate change? A law banning the sale of the least energy efficient household appliances.” This choice of variables is informed by the approach taken by Marquardt-Pyatt et al. (2019) and Sivonen and Kukkonen (2021). The three variables were only weakly correlated (average Pearson's correlation: 0.24). We created an index from these variables to neutralize the possibly distorting influences of the different policy instruments mentioned (public subsidies, tax increases, sale bans). The index variable has a scale that ranges from 3 to 15, with higher values indicating higher policy support.
The analysis uses two explanatory variables. The first one is how worried individuals are about climate change, which is measured on a scale from 1 to 5. Higher values indicate greater worries. The second one captures welfare attitudes, using an index created from three variables. These variables indicate in how far individual think that it is the responsibility of the government to (1) ensure a reasonable standard of living for the old, (2) ensure a reasonable standard of living for the unemployed, and (3) ensure sufficient childcare services for working parents. These variables are moderately associated (average Pearson's correlation 0.42). We created this index to neutralize the possibly distorting influences of the different welfare policy areas (old age, unemployment, childcare). The index has an answer scale reaching from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating higher welfare state support.
We included a battery of sociodemographic controls typically used in related studies (e.g. Fritz and Koch, 2019; Otto and Gugushvili, 2020; Parth and Vlandas, 2022) – age, gender, highest educational level, main activity in the last seven days, marital status, perceived household income, and occupational prestige. We also included left-right ideology as an attitudinal control that prior research has shown to affect support for environmental policies (e.g. Busemeyer and Baiser-McGrath, 2023; Kaiser et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023).
Table 1 highlights country differences in the explanatory and explained variables. It shows that support for environmental policies is comparatively high in the Nordics and comparatively low in Eastern Europe. Environmental concerns are comparatively high in continental European countries, and welfare attitudes are comparatively low in the liberal countries of Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The average respondent is a 49-year-old married working woman with 13 years of education and low occupational prestige, who positions herself in the middle of the political spectrum and is dissatisfied with the household income.
Analytic strategy
We conducted multilevel analyses to answer our research questions, with individuals (level 1) nested within countries (level 2). This type of analysis can capture influences of individuals and countries within a single model (Khan and Rahman, 2025). As our hypotheses suggest that the impact of welfare state attitudes on environmental policy support can occur both at the individual and country levels, such an analytical approach is appropriate. We conducted a multilevel analysis with a linear regression, using a random intercept and fixed effects for all explanatory and control variables. The analysis was carried out in four steps to obtain a more detailed overview of the explanatory power of the variables included (Desboulets, 2018). In the first step, only the intercept was included. The second step added all control variables. The third step further added the explanatory variables. The fourth step moreover introduced interaction effects between the explanatory variables. To assist in the interpretation of the findings, variables were treated in two ways: continuous variables were centered on their grand mean for the analysis, and categorical variables were assigned their mode as the reference category.
Results
We present a first impression of the results from the goodness of fit indices in Table 2. This table displays the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, the Akaike information criterion, and the Bayesian information criterion for all four models. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient shows how much of the variance is located at the country-level (McCoach et al., 2022). Its values are low for all four models, which is a reflection of the random intercept being included in all four models. Its values decline slightly from model 2 to model 3, which is when the explanatory variable at the country-level is introduced. The Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion display lower values for models with a better fit. However, they also penalize model complexity, especially the Bayesian information criterion in large samples (McCoach et al., 2022). Both information criteria decrease from Model 1 to Model 2 and Model 3, indicating a successively better model fit. The biggest improvement in model fit occurs from Model 2 to Model 3, when the explanatory variables are added. The situation is slightly different when moving from Model 3 to Model 4, where the interaction terms are added. With this step, the Akaike information criterion decreases only marginally, by a single point, while the Bayesian information criterion increases. This pattern of changes indicates that the interaction terms improve the goodness of fit only slightly, while increasing the model complexity considerably at the same time.
Goodness of fit indices, by model
| Intraclass correlation coefficient | Akaike information criterion | Bayesian information criterion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: Intercept only | 0.038 | 145,572 | 145,597 |
| Model 2: + control | 0.036 | 144,185 | 144,293 |
| Model 3: + explanatory | 0.029 | 141,844 | 141,978 |
| Model 4: + interactions | 0.029 | 141,843 | 141,993 |
We can see a more detailed overview of the findings in Table 3, which shows the regression coefficients. The intercept in this table represents the situation of the average individual in the sample. This individual supports environmental policies to a degree that is at about the mid-point of the scale. This intercept is significant at a level lower than 0.001. A separate test for the significance of the random part of the intercept (not shown in the table) indicates that the variation between countries is also significant at the same level. Moreover, the table shows that support is higher among younger women who are either working or retired. Furthermore, it shows that social inequalities play a clear role in support for environmental policies: this support is stronger among those with higher education, higher occupational prestige, and a more comfortable income. Regarding political factors, individuals are particularly supportive if they place themselves on the left side of the political spectrum.
Regression coefficients, standard errors, and significance levels of the full model
| Regression coefficient (standard error) | |
|---|---|
| Intercept | 7.29(0.10)*** |
| Austria | 0.49(0.05) |
| Belgium | −0.17(0.05) |
| Czech Republic | −0.48(0.05) |
| Estonia | −0.28(0.05) |
| Finland | 0.53(0.05) |
| France | −0.41(0.05) |
| Germany | 0.11(0.04) |
| Great Britain | −0.49(0.05) |
| Hungary | 0.33(0.06) |
| Iceland | −0.35(0.08) |
| Ireland | −0.64(0.05) |
| Italy | 0.11(0.06) |
| Lithuania | −0.29(0.06) |
| Netherlands | −0.04(0.06) |
| Norway | 0.35(0.06) |
| Poland | −0.06(0.06) |
| Portugal | −0.05(0.07) |
| Slovenia | 0.45(0.07) |
| Spain | −0.29(0.06) |
| Sweden | 0.70(0.06) |
| Switzerland | 0.47(0.06) |
| Individual level variables | |
| Age | −0.00(0.00)*** |
| Gender: female | Reference |
| male | −0.12(0.03)*** |
| Education (years) | 0.06(0.01)*** |
| Main activity: paid work | Reference |
| Retirement | −0.04(004) |
| other | −0.07(0.03)* |
| Married: no | Reference |
| yes | −0.01(0.03) |
| Prestige: low | Reference |
| intermediate | 0.17(0.03)*** |
| high | 0.34(0.04)*** |
| Income: not comfortable | Reference |
| comfortable | 0.32(0.03)*** |
| Left-right ideology | −0.09(0.01)*** |
| Worried about climate change | 0.67(0.01)*** |
| Welfare attitude | 0.11(0.01)*** |
| Worried*welfare | 0.01(0.01) |
| Country-level variables | |
| Welfare attitude | −0.31(0.19) |
| Worried*welfare | −0.13(0.03)*** |
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.005
Turning to the explanatory variables, the interplay between worries about climate change and welfare attitudes reveals a complex pattern. First, the variable on worries about climate change has a well-pronounced influence on support for environmental policies, with the difference between those who do not worry at all and those who are extremely worried being almost 3 points on the policy support scale.
Next, at the individual-level, an individual's attitudes to welfare also exert an influence: the difference between someone with the highest and someone with the lowest level of support is about 1 point on the policy support scale. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 can be maintained. This hypothesis proposes that individuals with stronger support for welfare also display stronger environmental policy support. However, the welfare attitudes of an individual do not modify how worries about climate change translate into environmental policy support. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 needs to be rejected. This hypothesis suggests that the more supportive individuals are of welfare policies, the weaker the effect of environmental attitudes on support for environmental policies.
Third, the influence of welfare attitudes plays out slightly differently at the country-level. The welfare attitudes that prevail in a country do not influence individuals' support for environmental policies at a 5% level. Consequently, Hypothesis 2 needs to be rejected. This hypothesis proposes that stronger welfare preferences in a country lead individuals to support environmental policies. However, the welfare attitudes in a country do modify how far worries about climate change translate into environmental policy support. Their influence is such that individuals with more positive welfare attitudes are less responsive to turning their climate change concerns into support for environmental policies. The difference between individuals with the most positive and those with the most negative welfare attitudes amounts to almost 1.5 points on the environmental policy support scale. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 can be maintained. This hypothesis states that the more supportive countries are of welfare policies, the stronger the effects of their citizens' environmental attitudes on support for environmental policies.
Discussion
Theoretical implications
European welfare states have repositioned themselves as environmental concerns grow by adding environmental policies to their repertoire, introducing diverse policies to protect the environment and counteract climate change. Previous research has established that popular support for such policies is connected to welfare attitudes (Marquardt-Pyatt et al., 2019; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021), but the various ways that they are connected remain inadequately understood. This article unravels what exactly these ways are.
The first research question inquires how far welfare attitudes influence environmental policy support. In doing so, it takes a closer look at suggestions that these two kinds of attitudes are directly interlinked. Previous research has discussed two options for such a link, with the synergy hypothesis describing a situation in which positive attitudes towards welfare state activity render strong environmental policy support, while the crowding out hypothesis claims the opposite (Parth and Vlandas, 2022). The findings of the present study show that, at the individual level, positive attitudes towards the welfare state indeed coincide with environmental policy support. The synergy hypothesis holds. Individuals seem to coordinate their policy preferences in terms of welfare and the environment to create a coherent framework that suits them. Within this framework, preferences seem to be for high support or low support as such, independent of the specific policy area considered. Future research should explore whether these preferences also extend to other policy areas. Interestingly, welfare preferences at the country-level do not show any such link with the environmental policy support of individuals. This finding prompts questions about how we ought to understand the emergence of eco-social policies and sustainable welfare states (e.g. Bohnenberger, 2023; Fritz and Koch, 2019). Our findings suggest that aligned preferences at the individual level may be especially relevant to understand the clustering of such policies and welfare state setups. Thus, future research should investigate the role of the individuals' preferences in these eco-social policy orientations.
The second research question examines how far welfare attitudes moderate the influence of environmental attitudes on environmental policy support. This question focuses on the complex influences that Parth and Vlandas (2022) have for example pointed out. The idea behind these influences is that welfare attitudes might modify extant predispositions for supporting environmental policies. As such, they shift preferences instead of directly influencing the policy support. The findings of this study show that the welfare attitudes of individuals do not exert any such modifying influence. Thus, the notion of the complex influences of welfare attitudes on environmental policy support (e.g. Fritz and Koch, 2019; Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2019; Parth and Vlandas, 2022; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021) is arguably less relevant at the individual-level. However, at the country-level, a moderating influence of welfare attitudes does exist. Findings show that the stronger the welfare preferences in a country, the less individual translate their climate change concerns into support for environmental policies. This observation can be interpreted as individuals in countries with strong welfare preferences trusting their governments to handle emerging issues. When they see issues in need of action, they assume that their governments will handle them. Hence there is less need to support separate policies. This interpretation partly aligns with Sivonen and Kukkonen (2021), who suggest that it is trust in the state that can link support for welfare and environmental policies. However, while Sivonen and Kukkonen (2021) suggest that trust can facilitate synergies, we suggest that it can also lead to crowding out. Future research should investigate the different ways in which trust in the state can coordinate welfare and environmental policy support.
This study has additional theoretical implications. It introduces the notion of the moral economy into discussions on environmental policy support, suggesting that support for such policies is rooted in a framework of overall considerations of what a good life is, and of which actions can be considered fair and justified (Frederiksen, 2025; Whitehead and Crenshaw, 2014). Using this moral economy as a stepping stone, it untangles the observed complexity of connections between welfare state attitudes and environmental policy support. This complexity concerns the question of whether the influences of welfare attitudes unfold at the individual- or country-level, whether they are in line with the synergy or the crowding out hypothesis, and whether they unfold as direct or indirect effects (Parth and Vlandas, 2022; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021; Sjöstrand, 2024). The findings reveal that the complexity stems from multiple influences being active at the same time. While there is a direct synergy effect at the individual-level, there is also an indirect crowding-out effect that connects the individual- and the country-levels. Thus, all of the previously suspected effects are discernible, and they do not contradict each other. They are simply split over two different mechanisms. Future research on the connection between welfare attitudes and environmental policy support should pay attention to this two-fold effect.
Societal implications
The findings of the current study also have societal implications. They can guide policymakers in democratic welfare states when representing their electorate and designing their election campaigns. Since positive welfare attitudes go hand in hand with support for environmental policies, policymakers might consider bundling these topics in election campaigns. When they address a group of voters about welfare issues, they might benefit from adding a second message about environmental policy support. This coupled approach might allow them to appear even more attractive to their voters. Moreover, the findings should remind policymakers that the influence of welfare state attitudes on environmental policy support is country-specific. While countries with lower approval for welfare state activities see a stronger connection between climate change concerns and environmental policy support, the situation is reversed in countries with high approval for welfare state activities. As a result, policymakers in the latter group of countries should not automatically conclude that they have a mandate to introduce environmental policies when they hear their citizens' concerns about climate change. Instead, they may fare better by pursuing environmental policies only when they have explicit citizen backing for environmental policies.
Limitations
This study has two main limitations. First, it considers European countries only. This approach allows for studying a more coherent sample and helps with the identification of mechanisms and interpretation of the cases. However, it limits the reach of this study's insights. Since this study does not consider any countries outside Europe, it cannot state with certainty whether the mechanisms discussed also apply outside Europe. Future research should replicate this study in other countries. Second, it relies on a quantitative analysis only, without supplementing it with qualitative data. The quantitative analysis allows the testing of formulated hypotheses and obtaining measurable results. However, it does not allow the in-depth tracing of individuals' rationale and worldview. Future research should conduct qualitative studies in the moral economy of environmental policies to add more insight into the logics and worldviews underlying it.
Conclusions
Overall, this study elucidates the mechanisms behind the connection between welfare attitudes and environmental policy support. While this connection had previously been characterized as complex, this study demonstrates that the perceived complexity results from two different mechanisms existing side-by-side: a direct synergistic influence at the individual level, and an indirect crowding out effect connecting the individual and country levels. Thus, ongoing debates about how citizens' welfare state attitudes affect their environmental policy support and the level at which this impact occurs are not contradictory but complementary. This impact is simply split over two distinctively different mechanisms.
