A new study highlights growing public support in the United States for eco-social policies designed to address the interconnected ecological and social crises of our time. The research, led by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and the London School of Economics (LSE), evaluated public support for four key innovative eco-social proposals: reducing working hours (as low as 28 hours per week), downscaling fossil fuel production, providing universal basic services, and limiting advertising for high-emission goods.
The study, published in the journal Ecological Economics, also examined how individual consumption-reduction or "sufficiency" behaviours — such as adopting plant-based diets, avoiding flights, walking, or prioritising sustainable transport like cycling — influence support for these policies. Additionally, it explored the impact of framing these proposals within a broader agenda of societal transformation (e.g., degrowth, although without using the term).
Among the most notable findings, the study reveals that, on average, participants preferred these eco-social policies over existing ones. Annual caps on fossil fuel extraction and the provision of universal healthcare were particularly well-received. Furthermore, individuals who were more engaged in sufficiency behaviours were more likely to support ecological policies, showing stronger support for fossil fuel restrictions, whilst support for socially oriented measures, such as reduced working hours and universal healthcare, was less pervasive and depended on other factors.
The analysis suggests that support for these social policies might be higher among individuals with eco-social values and higher levels of privilege, including full-time employment, higher education, and higher income. However, framing the policies within an eco-socialist and post-growth narrative not only failed to diminish support but, in some cases, increased it, as with universal healthcare.
Policymakers continue to ignore increasing calls for dismantling the fossil fuel industry from scientists and civil society organisations, and instead are in favour of supporting 'green growth.'
These findings suggest that the U.S. electorate is open to policy agendas that reduce dependence on fossil fuels (e.g., through limits) while improving citizens' quality of life. Notable examples include universal healthcare as a human right, accessible to everyone, regardless of employment or socioeconomic status, and reduced working hours as a tool for promoting well-being.
These agendas move beyond growth-based objectives to achieve eco-social goals. The study's authors suggest that transition plans for polluting industries could hold broad appeal. "Eco-social policy agendas can protect workers and support them in seeking new jobs that benefit society without harming the planet," says Dallas O'Dell, a researcher at ICTA-UAB and first author of the study.
However, the study cautions that when promoting individual sufficiency behaviours, it is essential to consider citizens' privilege levels, as these could influence support for broader social policies. "Encouraging reduced individual consumption among those with less privilege could lead to rejection of broader policies, particularly those of a social nature," O'Dell adds.
This study paves the way for new communication and mobilisation strategies for a more equitable and inclusive socio-economic transition that enhances well-being and reduces dependence on economic growth. The authors emphasise the need for further research to adapt and communicate these policies effectively, inspiring an eco-social movement that resonates with audiences across all socioeconomic statuses.
Election results: A contradiction?
According to researcher Dallas O'Dell, the study's findings may seem contradictory in light of the recent election results, which handed victory to Donald Trump. However, it should be noted that the polls were conducted in September 2022, a period when Trump's campaign was less active, "so respondents were able to reflect and consider the policies discussed in a less politicised context".
O'Dell notes that neither Republicans nor Democrats focused their campaigns on concrete policy proposals. Trump focused on ideological narratives (such as opposition to immigration) with general ideas and proposals to combat them (such as mass deportations), while Kamala Harris focused on reasons not to vote for Trump, offering few alternatives to change the status quo. Neither campaign focused on specific policy instruments, especially those that would affect the well-being of ordinary people or the planet. "The eco-social proposals analysed in the study were not on the electoral agenda," says O'Dell. As a result, voters' judgements may have focused more on the charisma, skills and rhetorical abilities of the candidates and less on specific policy issues such as those assessed in the study.
Voting for one candidate or another would not be directly related to support or lack of support for policies, and the direction of voters' votes may even have been against their beliefs on policy issues," she says. This would be evidenced by the fact that Trump won almost 50% of the vote from voters aged 18-29 (compared to 30% in 2020 ). Many voters in this age group appeared to diverge from Trump on a number of issues, being more concerned about the economy and climate change (than immigration) and wanting more government intervention in healthcare and student debt. These views would be much more compatible with support for the kind of eco-social policies discussed here, which aim to improve living conditions and reduce inequality.
