Public attitudes toward economic growth versus environmental sustainability dilemma: Evidence from Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As global warming and other environmental threats intensify and become more visible, scientists are increasingly questioning the desirability of economic growth as an overarching national and global policy imperative. Several theories in environmental sociology and economics—degrowth, steady-state economy, and “agrowth”—offer compelling arguments that environmental sustainability and continuous economic growth are incompatible. However, there is a shortage of empirical evidence about public opinion on the growth versus environment dilemma, despite its great relevance for the social legitimacy of governments’ approach to the issue. In this article, we aim to narrow this research gap by applying multilevel models to data from the 2017 European Values Study (EVS). We find that the idea of sacrificing a certain level of growth for the sake of the environment receives high levels of support in most European countries. Nevertheless, within countries, we find clear indications of social divides in opinions regarding the growth versus environment dilemma: post-materialists, politically left-leaning people, the better-off, and the higher-educated are in favor of reduced growth, whereas materialists, right-wing individuals, and disadvantaged groups prioritize the economy over ecological concerns. At the country level, economic affluence is associated with greater support for reduced growth, irrespective of the differences in post-materialist values and the ecological situation. In practical terms, our results suggest that politicians can be bolder in promoting substantive environmental measures, even those that reduce growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".